Emily Shaffer [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
we will need to discover the name another way. However, the process ID
should be sufficient regardless of platform.
Not a strong objection, but I wonder if seeing random integer(s) is
better than not having cmd_ancestry info at all. The latter better
signals that the platform does not yet have the "parent process
name" feature, I would think.
Hm, we could...
Please don't. There is a misreading here.
You mentioned "However, the process ID should be sufficient" and I
read it as "In the worst case we can emit the process ID if we do
not know how to turn it into name", and to that I said "showing
process IDs is not all that useful as they are random integers
without extra info on processes that were running back when the log
entry was taken". Similarly, my later "OK, we do not show pid as a
placeholder." is "Contrary to what I thought you said earlier, you
do not give raw process IDs and instead honestly say we do not have
that information by omitting the record. I am happy to see what the
actual patch does".
Thanks.
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 08:22:46AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Emily Shaffer [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
quoted
we will need to discover the name another way. However, the process ID
should be sufficient regardless of platform.
Not a strong objection, but I wonder if seeing random integer(s) is
better than not having cmd_ancestry info at all. The latter better
signals that the platform does not yet have the "parent process
name" feature, I would think.
Hm, we could...
Please don't. There is a misreading here.
You mentioned "However, the process ID should be sufficient" and I
read it as "In the worst case we can emit the process ID if we do
not know how to turn it into name", and to that I said "showing
process IDs is not all that useful as they are random integers
without extra info on processes that were running back when the log
entry was taken". Similarly, my later "OK, we do not show pid as a
placeholder." is "Contrary to what I thought you said earlier, you
do not give raw process IDs and instead honestly say we do not have
that information by omitting the record. I am happy to see what the
actual patch does".
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll see if I can make the "PID should be
enough" statement less confusing, instead - what I meant was "on all
systems, the result of getppid() should be sufficient to look up the
process name, so this code is probably shareable", and Randall has
pointed out elsewhere to me that that's false.
- Emily