This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Top reporting on cygwin processes only?

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.


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]