>Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, T@W wrote:
>>
>> > maybe the following was coincidental but i noticed that with the 1.4D6
>>test
>> > kernel the /proc got totally disarranged and pissed off ps.
>>
>> ps doesn't use /proc--nothing in the tree does. ps uses /var/db/kvm.db
>> which is rebuilt against /netbsd on every boot. If you move the new
>> kernel to /netbsd and do a full multi-user boot, ps will be fine.
>
>actually, i believe that the latest version of 'ps' _will_ in fact use
>/proc if it exists and /var/db/kvm.db or the kernel mismatches with 'ps'.

Yes, this is definitely true (at least on Alpha, so I'd assume universal).
I recently has kernel/binaries out of synch on my alpha, & after the error
about proc size mismatch, it fell back to using /proc & printed the PID and
process names, leaving zeroes in most of my other fields (alias ps ps
-augx), with a message at the top saying that because it was using /proc
that some fields are meaningless.

>a recent PR was filed which seems to indicate that procfs is completely
>broken in -current...this might explain the 'ps' problem.

It was about a week ago that I rebuit my system to bring kernel/binaries
back into synch & give me back a "real" ps, but the proc worked to that
point :-).

HTH
Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.