From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Support for 'info proc' on FreeBSD cores and native
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:05:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3442618.PIMj3GPsCN@ralph.baldwin.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d0662497-c4d7-e357-4f34-0f77c7343b7b@simark.ca>
On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 08:53:08 PM Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-12-22 05:05 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > This series adds initial support for the 'info proc' command on
> > FreeBSD native processes and process cores. FreeBSD generally does
> > not use the /proc filesystem, but instead exports data structures
> > containing process information either via kernel system control nodes
> > (for live processes), or in core dump notes.
> >
> > My assumption is that the format of 'info proc' is expected to be
> > somewhat OS-specific though probably not gratuitously so.
> >
> > For 'info proc mappings' I choose to include both mapping attributes
> > (such as permissions) along with the object file name.
> >
> > I did choose to implement versions of 'info proc stat' and 'info proc
> > status' that are similar to the output on Linux for now. However,
> > given that the output on FreeBSD is not tied to the output of files in
> > /proc and that having both 'stat' and 'status' with overlapping
> > content seems ambiguous, I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to just
> > have a single command that includes one copy of the information (and
> > perhaps treat 'stat' as an alias of 'status' on FreeBSD)? I also
> > noticed in the document that there are older commands such as 'info
> > proc id' and 'info proc time' that if implemented would contain a
> > subset of the info in the 'stat' commands. I would possibly prefer to
> > resurrect these commands on FreeBSD as subsets of 'stat/status'? What
> > do you all think?
> >
> > I do eventually plan on adding a 'info proc files' that outputs a
> > table of open file descriptors.
> >
> > For the documentation I made minimal changes to the existing
> > documentation for 'info proc' to not state that it requires /proc, but
> > the wording could probably use improvement. I have also not yet
> > documented that FreeBSD supports 'proc stat' and 'proc status' due to
> > the question above.
>
> Hi John,
>
> From reading the documentation, "info proc" seems to have been introduced
> specifically to print things from /proc. I find it too bad however that
> the command line interface is based so closely on the /proc interface,
> since it brings all of its quirks with it (e.g. stat vs status). Also,
> the important thing to the user is the information, regardless of where
> it comes from.
>
> With your patch, it moves "info proc" a little bit from "printing /proc"
> to "print things about a process", which I think is totally fine. I think
> you could change the doc to put even less emphasis on the fact that the info
> comes from /proc.
Ok, I'll try to update the documentation a bit more towards that vein.
> I'm fine with what you suggested above.
To be clear, which of these suggestions are you fine with?
1) Having a merged 'info proc stat/status' for FreeBSD.
2) Resurrecting 'info proc id' and 'info proc time'.
--
John Baldwin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-03 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-22 22:05 John Baldwin
2017-12-22 22:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] Create psuedo sections for FreeBSD NT_PROCSTAT_(PROC|FILES|VMMAP) notes John Baldwin
2017-12-27 1:18 ` Simon Marchi
2018-01-02 11:49 ` Nick Clifton
2017-12-22 22:05 ` [PATCH 2/4] Support 'info proc' for FreeBSD process core dumps John Baldwin
2017-12-27 1:56 ` Simon Marchi
2018-01-03 19:05 ` John Baldwin
2017-12-22 22:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] Support 'info proc' for native FreeBSD processes John Baldwin
2017-12-27 2:23 ` Simon Marchi
2018-01-03 19:05 ` John Baldwin
2018-01-03 19:13 ` Simon Marchi
2018-01-03 21:56 ` John Baldwin
2017-12-22 22:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] Document support for 'info proc' on FreeBSD John Baldwin
2017-12-23 8:46 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-27 1:53 ` [PATCH 0/4] Support for 'info proc' on FreeBSD cores and native Simon Marchi
2018-01-03 19:05 ` John Baldwin [this message]
2018-01-03 19:15 ` Simon Marchi
2018-01-03 23:39 ` John Baldwin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3442618.PIMj3GPsCN@ralph.baldwin.cx \
--to=jhb@freebsd.org \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=simark@simark.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).