On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 08:22:46AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > 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
