From owner-cvs-all Sat Apr 7 1: 4:20 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F0337B422; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:04:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from hornet.unixfreak.org (hornet [63.198.170.140]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21673E09; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:04:12 -0700 (PDT) To: Bruce Evans Cc: Brian Somers , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/ps ps.c In-Reply-To: ; from bde@zeta.org.au on "Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:57:36 +1000 (EST)" Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 01:04:12 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010407080412.E21673E09@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bruce Evans writes: > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Brian Somers wrote: > > Log: > > The sess column went away last December with v1.26 of keyword.c > > Remove it from ``jfmt''. > > > > Forgotten by: mckusick > > This stomps on PR 26057, which contains more complete fixes. It's > not clear whether the bug is the non-removal of the sess column and > the sess keyword or the removal of the e_sess pointer. This particular commit doesn't really hurt anything. We just need to decide whether there should be an e_sess (or ki_sess, now) pointer or not. PR 26057, which you mention, contains a patch to add it back. Although mckusick did explicitly say he was removing it in his kproc_info commit, he didn't provide rationale. So, the question is: do we want a `sess' column? Regards, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message