From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bakul@bitblocks.com (Bakul Shah) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:38:59 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX of choice these days? In-Reply-To: <20170924203621.GA80203@wopr> References: <20170923091704.GD10152@darioniedermann.it> <20170924140617.GG28606@mcvoy.com> <20170924203621.GA80203@wopr> Message-ID: <49B7FCB8-A086-4FFB-AF3B-4B3BD167EC54@bitblocks.com> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:06:17AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: >> +1 on what Ron said. I don't get the rationale for going back to ptrace. >> Anyone know what it is? Is there a perf issue? > > The usual rationale presented is that someone can exhaust the fd table > and then you can't get anything done. Instead of fixing that problem, > the popular approach is to add more syscalls, like with getrandom(2). $ svn log sys/fs/procfs/procfs.c | head ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r314690 | badger | 2017-03-04 19:05:24 -0800 (Sat, 04 Mar 2017) | 15 lines remove procfs ctl interface This interface has no in-tree consumers and has been more or less non-functional for several releases. Remove manpage note that the procfs special file 'mem' is grouped to kmem. This hasn't been true since r81107. Remove procfs' README file. It is an out of date duplication of the manpage (quoth the README: "since the bsd kernel is single-processor..."). Reviewed by: vangyzen, bcr (manpage) Approved by: des (procfs maintainer), vangyzen (mentor) Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9802 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r232278 | mm | 2012-02-28 16:30:18 -0800 (Tue, 28 Feb 2012) | 5 lines There are just a few potential users of /proc and they were already using other facilities. plus /proc is an optional facility. All this conspired to make /proc less useful in FreeBSD. Unused code is in danger of being garbage collected in FreeBSD :-)