Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:38:02 +0100 From: gregoryd.freebsd@free.fr To: Fernando =?iso-8859-1?b?QXBlc3RlZ3XtYQ==?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?b?U234cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting from Linux to FreeBSD (procfs question) Message-ID: <1199453882.477e36ba4d4d7@imp.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <1bd550a00801031157s521665e4p77b2250d3966ec1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1bd550a00801030926h7b3f0aaayfd04244a3305619c@mail.gmail.com> <86tzlud6y5.fsf@ds4.des.no> <1bd550a00801031157s521665e4p77b2250d3966ec1d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Fernando Apesteguía <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>: > Maybe a mix of both could be good: use the linxprocfs when it is > almost straightforward (in fact I could run the app, just changing few > lines) and sysctl when the linprocfs doesn't provide the information > that I need. Wouldn't the opposite be more legitimate: using sysctl and falling back on linuxprocfs when lacking functionality ? (Depending on whether it's a FreeBSD *port*, or if you want to keep it as general as you can) Also, have you considered procstat ? (as i read here: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd8.html it is destined to replace procfs in a way, am I wrong ?) Depending on how short term your application must be available (and how long it will take to MFC procstat), it might do the thing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1199453882.477e36ba4d4d7>