Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
X-WM-Posted-At: avacado.atomice.net; Tue, 28 May 02 22:24:49 +0100
Message-ID: <008601c2068e$193b6200$0100a8c0@advent02>
From: "Chris January" <chris AT atomice DOT net>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Question about process enumeration and _pinfo structure
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:24:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

I want to add a member to the _pinfo structure which contains the command
line originally passed to the process. At the moment, when the Cygwin DLL
needs a list of the current Cygwin processes it uses winpids to enumerate
the processes and the _pinfo structures for each Cygwin process are copied
from a named file mapping. So to store the command line I either need to:
i) make the command line an in-line array, e.g. char cmdline[1024];
or
ii) make the member a pointer to a string allocated on the cygwin heap.
The first would work, but would set a limit on the size of command line. (I
believe there are several other, conflicting, limits elsewhere so this
shouldn't be a problem).
The second would also work, but would tie the _pinfo structure to a specific
instance of the Cygwin DLL.
Now I know there's supposed to be only one instance of the DLL running on
the system anyway, which leads me to the following question:
Why are the processes enumerated in this fashion rather than an array or
linked list of _pinfo's stored in the shared_info structure? Is this just
historical (i.e. noone got round to changing it) or is there some reasoning
behind it?

Chris