Re: Change to "kludge option processing" in /bin/ps

From: Garance A Drosihn (drosih_at_rpi.edu)
Date: 05/28/04

  • Next message: Kirk McKusick: "Re: The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" 
    Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:24:31 -0400
To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles+fbsd-arch@stack.nl>

    At 5:51 PM +0200 5/28/04, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
    >On Sun, May 23, 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
    >
    >> If anyone wants to try the update, it is available at:
    >>
    > > http://people.freebsd.org/~gad/ps-kludge.diff
    >>
    > > Assuming there aren't any major objections to these ideas, I plan
    > > to do some more testing on this and commit it next weekend.
    >
    >What's the deeper purpose of the `optlist' argument for
    >`kludge_oldps_options' if it's always set to PS_ARGS?

    a) After a future update, it may be set to something else.
    b) An earlier version of this update called the kludge-
        processing for all remaining arguments, and used NULL for
        optlist to distinguish between argument #1 and "all the
        rest". After a little testing I realized that that idea
        was simply not going to work the way I wanted it to, so
        I got rid of that code but left the parameter.

    >I have some doubts on whether `ps t' instead of `ps T' should
    >still be supported, since `ps t p0' doesn't work because of it.
    >You could only change 't' to 'T' when there are no more
    >arguments.

    Hmm, that is an interesting point. I'll check into it. I should
    note that I'm not going to knock myself out trying to create ideal
    processing for the historical '-'-less options. However I do think
    I might be able to improve on the 't'-kludge a little bit more.

    >Am I right that `ps U0' is equivalent to `ps -U0' with the patch?
    >(This wasn't really much of an issue before `-U' accepted uids
    >instead of names.)

    Yes, after the patch `ps U0' == `ps -U0'
    Before the patch, `ps U0' == ps: No user named 'p0'

    >What happens when you do `ps 1,2,3,4'? And `ps uww0,1'? Or even
    >`ps "v1 $$"'?

    `ps 1,2,3,4' == `ps -p 1,2,3,4'
    `ps uww0,1' == `ps -uww -p0,1'
         BUT
    `ps u ww0,1' == an error, since kludge processing is only
                      done on argument #1
    `ps v1 10' == `ps -p1 -p10'
    `ps "v1 10"' == an error, for reasons unrelated to this update

    >All this complexity makes me think of not using getopt(3), as
    >Albert Cahalan suggested :)

    Eh. I don't think it's all that bad, not yet at least. As long
    as we limit "kludge" (the "-"-less option) processing to the first
    argument, I think we can use getopt() without too much trouble. 

    -- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Kirk McKusick: "Re: The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System"