Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:57:43 +0100
From:	Jim George <jim DOT george AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Top reporting on cygwin processes only?
Message-Id:	<20020806225743.200268b7.jim.george@blueyonder.co.uk>
In-Reply-To:	<20020806213011.GC1386@redhat.com>
References:	<20020805223042 DOT 39e9de67 DOT jim DOT george AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk>
	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0208051908090 DOT 694-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
	<20020806095533 DOT O3921 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20020806112623 DOT 2950e6f5 DOT jim DOT george AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk>
	<20020806142354 DOT GA19193 AT redhat DOT com>
	<20020806210752 DOT 24512cc5 DOT jim DOT george AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk>
	<20020806213011 DOT GC1386 AT redhat DOT com>
Organization:	JSDM Services Ltd
Mime-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:30:11 -0400
Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:07:52PM +0100, Jim George wrote:
> >On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:23:54 -0400
> >Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> >>On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:26:23AM +0100, Jim George wrote:
> >>>should ps be modified to work as top does, of course /proc would need
> >>>to be upgraded, or can top be modified to work as ps does, or should
> >>>both continue on their own but be updated to recognise all processes
> >>>running on a box?
> >>
> >>'ps --help' will show you an option for displaying windows processes as
> >>well as cygwin processes.
> >>
> >I'm aware that ps -W shows both but what I was driving at in my own
> >befuddled way is, shouldn't both top and ps be capable of reporting on
> >both, i.e bring top in to line with ps?
> 
> I don't know what you're asking for.  Chris January has indicated
> willingness to do this.  Maybe you missed that.  It still needs someone
> to do the work.
>

It's not my night tonight is it?  Yes I did miss the fact that Chris January inidicated that he was willing to take a crack at it.  I'm afraid that I'm not qualified to actually do the work but would be pleased to support in anyway the person who does sees fit.
 
> >Based on what Corrina said this would mean a major change to one or
> >other of the utilities since top uses /proc but ps uses the cygwin api.
> >Hence which, if any, should change?
> 
> What do you want ps to do?  Lose the ability to use -W and make it
> unable to process Windows files?  Doesn't seem very worthwhile to me.
> 

Far from inhibiting ps I would like to see top have the same capability.  My point was...wouldn't it be better if top and ps had a common method of accessing information (if this were achievable).  If it's not achievable or desirable then so be it.

> FWIW, top isn't even an official cygwin package yet.  I think you're
> getting a little ahead of yourself.
> 

The fact that it isn't a cygwin package is surely irrelevant at this point?  What we are discussing is the future capability of ps _and_ top.  One is a cygwin package and the other will, hopefully, become one.

Jim

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -