On 2012-11-08 09:20, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Andriy Gapon w dniu 8 lis 2012, o godz.
15:17:
on 08/11/2012 01:00 Greg 'groggy' Lehey said the following:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 16:35:22 -0600, Larry Rosenman
wrote:
On 2012-11-07 15:39, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 10:32:23 -0500, Benjamin Kaduk
wrote:
Once again, attempting to use kernel internals outside of the
supported interfaces is just asking for trouble; I do not
understand
why this message is not sinking in over the course of your
previous
mails to these lists, so I will not try to belabor it further.
IIRC lsof is a special case that always needs to be built with
intimate knowledge of the kernel.
This is VERY true. Since some of the information lsof uses has
no API/ABI/KPI/KBI to get, it grovels around in the kernel.
And until those interfaces are provided, I think this is
legitimate.
If there's anybody out there who hasn't used lsof, you should try
it.
It's good.
Just curious why lsof can't use interfaces that e.g.
fstat/sockstat/etc use?
Those base utilities do not seem to experience as much trouble as
lsof.
Note that fstat(8) does not report file paths. On the other hand,
procstat(8)
does. It looks like "procstat -fa" and "procstat -va" together
provide the
same information lsof(8) does; unfortunately there doesn't seem to be
a way
to show a "merged" output for files opened (-f) and files mmapped,
but closed
(-v).
Remember also that lsof is portable between MANY flavors of *nix.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
