Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:29:06 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let gcore use ptrace interface rather than the procfs Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10911230729l787f6e28n142916c5a580273b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10911190707w63d1ab66pa2014c526342f68e@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe10911160718j7784b311g2980aa02c79bc9ec@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911171120050.47035@fledge.watson.org> <20091117141713.GA51251@sandvine.com> <9C740225-CB30-4D26-8E4B-F9D5DC51B899@FreeBSD.org> <3bbf2fe10911181733j598083feiddf3d4b34d0007d6@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911190757430.12162@fledge.watson.org> <3bbf2fe10911190545l264c0e2s615034999f46bc0a@mail.gmail.com> <645CAAD7-A3BE-44B3-97D5-F4E4786943A4@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10911190707w63d1ab66pa2014c526342f68e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/11/19 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: > 2009/11/19 Robert N. M. Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>: >> >> On 19 Nov 2009, at 13:45, Attilio Rao wrote: >> >>>> If you add the missing include of sys/wait.h, elfcore.c generates an e= rror >>>> instead of a warning on this non-traditional use of wait(2): >>>> >>>> + wait(); >>>> >>>> Something like this may be preferred: >>>> >>>> if (waitpid(pid, NULL, 0) < 0) >>>> err(1, "waitpid"); >>> >>> I didn't get a warning neither an error but yes, the waitpid() is >>> preferred and should be used. >> >> This warning was on i386 9.x, FYI, and was a property of failing to call= wait(2) with an argument. >> >>>> I think that kills the last of the procfs dependencies, in which case >>>> perhaps we can remove the procfs.h include from elfcore.c, which requi= res >>>> defining a local version of a summary data structure borrowed from pro= cfs. >>>> It's worth trying with procfs unmounted, however, to make sure they're >>>> really all gone (which is how I ran into the above problem). >>> >>> I don't like the idea to replicate the structures because of code >>> maintence. IMHO is ok to have procfs header. >> >> >> I'm not sure I agree; looking at the elfcore code, it looks like it goes= to some amount of inconvenience to stuff things into the structure in the = first place, primarily because that was how procfs exported it. With your e= xcellent change, there's no need for gcore(1) to depend on procfs-specific = data structures that may change, or more ideally, be removed in the future. > > Yeah, I had the same feeling as the interfaces should be more lifted > in order to less fit procfs (example: probabilly readmap could export > directly the list of objects from libutil rather then transforming it) > but let's get there in a second round of changes probabilly. This further patch should address the last reported issues and a couple of style nits: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/Sandvine/STABLE_8/gcore/gcore3.diff Please also note that I added the Sandvine's copyright because I think the extent of the changes deserve it. Thanks, Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10911230729l787f6e28n142916c5a580273b>