Re: total memory of children processes

[Christian Hopp]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:

> > As I am one of the fortunate Solaris users I would also prefer
> > 2)... but when it comes to clean code I would do the hard way, meaning 1).
>
> Let's go for choice 2 and it's a good idea to put in a warning in the
> parser, if the statement is used on Linux. You fix? Then we still are
> up for a release Monday/Tuesday next week.

I gonna fix tomorrow.

> > Nope... it depends on your depends. (-: I have written a code
> > preserving the order for status, by adding a next_conf and a
> > statuslist_conf.  This requires just <services>*<pointersize> memory.
> > And it works.
>
> Yes, simply saving the servicelist in an optional variable++ *before*
> check_depend is executed will let you keep the registred order. But
> I'm not sure why this is important to do?

Nope... I dont copy... I simply save the order and the startpoint!

Yes... it is important... it is hard to read the status output if you have
80 services being not in the right order!

CHopp

-- 
Christian Hopp                                email: address@hidden
Institut für Elektrische Informationstechnik             fon: +49-5323-72-2113
TU Clausthal, Leibnizstr. 28, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerf.   fax: +49-5323-72-3197
                             pgpkey: https://www.iei.tu-clausthal.de/pgp-keys/