[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: lib/53125: sys/timevar.h is absent in installed systems.
The following reply was made to PR lib/53125; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Utkarsh Anand <utkarsh009%yandex.com@localhost>
To: =?utf-8?B?SmFyb23DrXIgRG9sZcSNZWs=?= <jaromir.dolecek%gmail.com@localhost>
Cc: "gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost" <gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: lib/53125: sys/timevar.h is absent in installed systems.
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:12:59 +0530
24.03.2018, 22:47, "JaromÃr DoleÄ?ek" <jaromir.dolecek%gmail.com@localhost>:
> 2018-03-24 17:53 GMT+01:00 Utkarsh Anand <utkarsh009%yandex.com@localhost>:
>>> You still don't explain what you want to do. _KMEMUSER use is restricted
>>> even in the kernel, it's in no way designed to be used in userland.
>> I have explained it above. It doesn't look like a bug in that application. Apparently, other
>> operating systems provide access to `struct kinfo_proc` even to non _KMEMUSERs.
> I think Manuel wanted to know what particular information you need to get, i.e. why are you looking into this kinfo_proc at all.
As shown here: https://github.com/neovim/neovim/blob/be67d926c5eec3b90cf906471f4b81ed21223c1f/src/nvim/os/process.c#L167
It wants to get a list of all processes and separate those processes that match parent process id. It seems to build in Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOSX.
> Perhaps there is other suitable interface, or some set of headers which need to be included. Groweling through kernel internal structures is usually bad sign, and it's almost always non-portable, and tends to break between OS versions. We provide binary-safe interfaces in order to make it simpler to keep the apps working.
> So what is the purpose of the code you are trying to get to compile and run, what kind of information do you need to get, why the standard POSIX interfaces are not sufficient?
Umm.. maybe there's a way and I couldn't find it. FreeBSD is in the list of supported OSes too.
Main Index |
Thread Index |