Re: [9fans] Re: patch/list sorry/proc-mtime

["Gorka guardiola" <paurea@gmail.com>]

On 3/30/06, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
>
> it duplicates information already in the status file,
> and it would be the *only* kernel device file in the system

The metadata of each device is not giving any
information if they all have the same mtime.

> that didn't use kerndate as the mtime.  when did the
> plan 9 approach become "there's more than one way to do it"?
>
> ls -t /proc is of course indistinguishable from ls | sort -n.
>
> ls -lt /proc just gives you some dates in sorted order.
> it's useless unless you somehow have the pid->process info
> mapping stored in your head.
>
> if you want to change ps(1) to *display* the start time
> of a process, i think that could be genuinely useful.
> putting an extra copy on the directory mtime is not.
>
> russ

I am not sure about this. Static devices having all the
same mtime (kerndate) makes sense to me. Dynamic
devices in which files and directories appear and disappear
as draw or proc not having the mtime set as normal
dir/files doesnt. It may be done for simplicity,
but it breaks what one would expect. The information
is not duplicated as far as I understand. The info on the
mtime would be when the process started, but the
info inside status is how much time it has consumed
isnt it?.

All this said, I am not coding any of this, so I have voice
but not vote...
--

- curiosity sKilled the cat