olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Tue 07 Sep 2010 02:25:50 +0200, a écrit :
> From 60c06172f3ae0ce585a95c08062f39998f9edfe1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: antrik
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:29:06 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Obtain number of ports in proc and libps
>
> Add (and implem
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Mon 13 Sep 2010 21:26:34 +0200, a écrit :
> > > Also note that there is precedenct for extending the proc info query
> > > by adding new RPCs.
> >
> > Ok, but I guess it wasn't just for _one_ piece information.
>
> It is.
Ok, then fine.
Samuel
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:51:07AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 10 Sep 2010 02:31:25 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:03:28AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Or put another way, I'm really not at ease adding an RPC just for
> > > this kind
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 10 Sep 2010 02:31:25 +0200, a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:03:28AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 12:01:12 +0200, a écrit :
>
> > > [...] but it seems odd to me to add an interface just for this small
> > > part of info
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 10 Sep 2010 02:02:45 +0200, a écrit :
> Why would you want to treat the number of ports any
> different than say memory consumption, or number of threads?...
I don't. I'd tend to think these shouldn't be exposed either.
Samuel
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:55:48AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Thu 09 Sep 2010 01:38:36 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:01:12PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a
> > > écrit :
> > >
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:03:28AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 12:01:12 +0200, a écrit :
> > [...] but it seems odd to me to add an interface just for this small
> > part of information which you can fetch yourself for your own
> > processes.
>
> Or pu
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 12:01:12 +0200, a écrit :
> olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a écrit :
> > The information available from proc through
> > libps OTOH can be accessed by every user.
>
> Which might be questionable actually. I know it's just the numb
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Thu 09 Sep 2010 01:38:36 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:01:12PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a écrit :
>
> > > - portinfo is privileged.
> >
> > Err, for other processes, yes, but for one's
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:01:12PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a écrit :
> > - portinfo is privileged.
>
> Err, for other processes, yes, but for one's own processes,no.
>
> > The information available from proc through libps O
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:34:04AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > Mmm, portinfo | wc -l works too, is there really a need for a
> > new RPC, couldn't libps use the same RPC as portinfo does?
>
> No, for several reasons:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:34:04AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Mmm, portinfo | wc -l works too, is there really a need for a
> new RPC, couldn't libps use the same RPC as portinfo does?
No, for several reasons:
- portinfo is slow. So slow that it's practically unusable for what I
wan
Mmm, portinfo | wc -l works too, is there really a need for a new
RPC, couldn't libps use the same RPC as portinfo does?
Samuel
>From 60c06172f3ae0ce585a95c08062f39998f9edfe1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: antrik
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:29:06 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Obtain number of ports in proc and libps
Add (and implement) a proc RPC to obtain the number of Mach ports used
by the target task.
Add infrastructure
14 matches
Mail list logo
