Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 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> <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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:30:11 -0400 Christopher Faylor 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 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/