Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:24:27 -0400
To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: Extending cygwin's process table
Message-ID: <20000719142427.H17938@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References: <20000719105042 DOT D17347 AT cygnus DOT com> <NBBBJDHEGLOMBGDMCLNEGEKBDIAA DOT tony DOT arnold AT man DOT ac DOT uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <NBBBJDHEGLOMBGDMCLNEGEKBDIAA.tony.arnold@man.ac.uk>; from tony.arnold@man.ac.uk on Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 04:16:01PM +0100

On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 04:16:01PM +0100, Tony Arnold wrote:
>Chris,
>
>> >Does this mean we could get ps to report the Windows processes as well as
>> >the cygwin ones? Also for kill to work on Windows processes as well as
>> >cygwin ones, or is this asking too much?
>>
>> Nope.  I was going to investigate doing this, too.  I've had generic pid
>> walking code for a couple of years that I was going to "round tuit" into
>> cygwin but...
>
>OK. Just a suggestion that I think could prove very useful.

I'm not sure if my response was clear.  You said "is this asking too
much?" And I said "No", meaning "No, it's not too much to ask."

I had a goal of including non-cygwin pids in the ps output.

>> Btw, I should point out that it's not likely that I can get a
>> 100% correspondence
>> between windows pids and cygwin pids.  Instead, the pids will
>> have a likelihood
>> of being the same but no guarantee.
>
>I guess if you were going to implement my suggestion above, then there would
>be a requirement for cygwin PIDs and Windows PIDs to be unique accross the
>system, i.e., you could not have cygwin PID be the same number as a Windows
>PID.

I think it may be possible but cygwin pids could comprise up to two
windows pids.  I'm still in thinking out load stage, though, despite
having thought about this problem for three years now.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com