I have been asked several times whether the devps patch will go into the
mainline Linux kernel.  The following emails from Alan Cox and Linux Torvalds
make it clear that it is not going to happen.  This does not mean this patch
had no value -- it does.  It just means that those that like it get to apply it
themselves...

 -Erik


-------------------------------

From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk  Thu Apr 13 08:07:22 2000
Return-Path: <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Delivered-To: andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com
Received: from localhost (dillweed.dsl.xmission.com [10.0.0.1])
	by dillweed.dsl.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D57A11A4F5
	for <andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:07:22 -0600 (MDT)
Envelope-to: andersen@xmission.com
Received: from mail.xmission.com
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.3.3)
	for andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com (single-drop); Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:07:22 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [194.168.151.1] (helo=the-village.bc.nu)
	by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #3)
	id 12fhQk-0002OZ-00
	for andersen@xmission.com; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:05:03 -0600
Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12fhQ9-0002nD-00
	for andersen@xmission.com; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:04:25 +0100
Subject: Re: kernel ps drivers [Was: vm locking question]
To: andersen@xmission.com
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:04:23 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <20000412224130.A2748@xmission.com> from "Erik Andersen" at Apr 12, 2000 10:41:30 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E12fhQ9-0002nD-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Content-Length: 242
Lines: 6

> On the subject of ps, would you be willing to accept my /dev/ps 
> patch into the kernel?  If no, any suggestions on what should
> be done differently (if anything) to make it worthy of inclusion?

For 2.2.x no, for 2.3.x ask Linus not me


From torvalds@transmeta.com  Thu Apr 13 09:18:16 2000
Return-Path: <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Delivered-To: andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com
Received: from localhost (dillweed.dsl.xmission.com [10.0.0.1])
	by dillweed.dsl.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3776411A3DF
	for <andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:18:16 -0600 (MDT)
Envelope-to: andersen@xmission.com
Received: from mail.xmission.com
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.3.3)
	for andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com (single-drop); Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:18:16 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [209.10.217.66] (helo=neon-gw.transmeta.com)
	by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #3)
	id 12flK2-0004dd-00
	for andersen@xmission.com; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:14:22 -0600
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18635;
	Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:10:51 -0700
Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1)
	id xma018629; Thu, 13 Apr 00 08:10:25 -0700
Received: from penguin.transmeta.com (root@penguin.transmeta.com [10.1.2.202])
	by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12264;
	Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (torvalds@localhost) by penguin.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA02051; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:13:53 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.transmeta.com: torvalds owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Erik Andersen <andersen@xmission.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: kernel ps drivers [Was: vm locking question]
In-Reply-To: <20000413083127.A976@xmission.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004130812170.2000-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
Content-Length: 659
Lines: 16


On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Erik Andersen wrote:
> 
> For 2.3.x would you be willing to accept my /dev/ps driver into the kernel?
> (Assuming I remove the /dev/modules driver (since it was pointed out that there
> is a perfectly good syscall providing that interface).  If no, is there anything
> that could be done differently (if anything) to make it worthy of inclusion?

I do dislike /dev/ps mightily. If the problem is that /proc is too large,
then the right solution is to just clean up /proc. Which is getting done.
And yes, /proc will be larger than /dev/ps, but I still find that
preferable to having two incompatible ways to do the same thing.

		Linus