lawley@cs.mu.OZ.AU (michael lawley) (07/31/90)
Under Umax 4.3 is there any way to get hold of a processes arguments for the
purposes of a ps/sps like program? inq_stats() will only give me (12 chars
of) the command name. I don't care about issues of portability or
compatability with future upgrades so any way to just traverse /dev/kmem
(/dev/mem ?) would be fine. Also, the process's environment would be nice
to see as well.
mike
--
_--_|\ michael lawley (lawley@cs.mu.OZ.AU).
/ \ The Unicycling Systems Programmer,
\_.--.*/ Melbourne University, Computer Science
v
"You can't, really, dust for vomit."john@loverso.leom.ma.us (John Robert LoVerso) (08/03/90)
> Under Umax 4.3 is there any way to get hold of a processes arguments for the > purposes of a ps/sps like program? From what I remember of UMAX (and the guts of it are unchanged, even in UMAX4.3), it only keeps the first 12 bytes of the program name. The args only exist out in process space, and I don't believe there is any way to access them (at all). An alternative would be to run MACH on your Multimax, which, for all pratical purposes, is a superset of BSD. As such, it provides the same kmem abilities as 4.3BSD. ../John -- John Robert LoVerso Until July 27: As of July 30: As always at home: Xylogics, Inc. Concurrent Computer Corp John & Sue's house Annex Terminal Server (something with TCP & FDDI) loverso@xylogics.com loverso@westford.ccur.com john@loverso.leom.ma.us 617/272-8140 x 284 508/692-6200
lawley@cs.mu.OZ.AU (michael lawley) (08/03/90)
On 2 Aug 90 21:07:10 GMT, john@loverso.leom.ma.us (John Robert LoVerso) said: > I said: >> Under Umax 4.3 is there any way to get hold of a processes arguments for the >> purposes of a ps/sps like program? > From what I remember of UMAX (and the guts of it are unchanged, even in > UMAX4.3), it only keeps the first 12 bytes of the program name. The args > only exist out in process space, and I don't believe there is any way to > access them (at all). Umm, this doesn't make sense to me. If the args are in user space (which, of course, they must be) then you must be able to get at them from kernel mode as long as you know how. (See source for ps or sps [not Encore versions]). You are right, however, that the kernel only keeps track of 12 bytes of the command name - this is what the inq_stats() call gives you. > ../John mike - still looking for an answer -- _--_|\ michael lawley (lawley@cs.mu.OZ.AU). / \ The Unicycling Systems Programmer, \_.--.*/ Melbourne University, Computer Science v "You can't, really, dust for vomit."
jrm@mad.cis.ohio-state.edu (John R. Mudd) (08/03/90)
In article <9632@xenna.Xylogics.COM> John Robert LoVerso <john@loverso.leom.ma.us> writes: >An alternative would be to run MACH on your Multimax, which, for all >pratical purposes, is a superset of BSD. As such, it provides the same >kmem abilities as 4.3BSD. True, but when will Mach release 0.6 *ever* be released? It was supposedly to be out in Q1 '90. I think it's wonderful that Encore offers Mach as an alternative to Umax, but these interminable delays are starting to get annoying. I'm starting to get the feeling that no one at Encore besides the Ultramax/Mach group cares anymore. ... John .......................................................................... John R. Mudd jrm@cis.ohio-state.edu Department of Computer and Information Science, The Ohio State University 2036 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, USA 43210-1277 +1 614 292 7161
boykin@encore.com (Joseph Boykin) (08/07/90)
In article <82689@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, jrm@mad.cis.ohio-state.edu (John R. Mudd) writes: > In article <9632@xenna.Xylogics.COM> John Robert LoVerso <john@loverso.leom.ma.us> writes: > >An alternative would be to run MACH on your Multimax, which, for all > >pratical purposes, is a superset of BSD. As such, it provides the same > >kmem abilities as 4.3BSD. > > True, but when will Mach release 0.6 *ever* be released? It was supposedly > to be out in Q1 '90. I think it's wonderful that Encore offers Mach as an > alternative to Umax, but these interminable delays are starting to get > annoying. I'm starting to get the feeling that no one at Encore besides > the Ultramax/Mach group cares anymore. Mach 0.6 is currently slated for release by the end of this quarter (late September). This date hasn't change (at least by very much) for quite some time (at least for the past six months). As for who cares... Hard to say. Part of the problem is that few of our customers who run Mach tell their sales people that they want this stuff. If there is no perceived need, the company certainly isn't going to put lots of people (pronounced money) behind the Mach effort. So, if you want those revs to keep coming, call your favorite sales-oid and bug *him/her* for 0.6! I love pressure from the field! For those who don't know, 0.6 is based on CMU Release 2.5 and has a parallelized Unix file system, NFS file system, network, tty, etc. subsystems. It will also include new utilities in the new directory layout. It is/was 0.6 which the OSF/1 parallelization effort was based on. ---- Joseph Boykin Manager, Mach OS Development Encore Computer Corp Treasurer, IEEE Computer Society Internet: boykin@encore.com Phone: 508-460-0500 x2720