Serge E. Hallyn [serue@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | Quoting Michel Normand (normand@xxxxxxxxxx): | > Le jeudi 11 février 2010 à 11:08 +0100, Michel Normand a écrit : | > > Le mercredi 10 février 2010 à 20:25 -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit : | > > > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | > > > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:09:17 -0800 | > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] lxc-ps: Nit - Avoid blank CONTAINER column | > > > | > > > The contianer name is not printed in the lxc-ps output unless the --lxc | > > > option is specified. But the CONTAINER column is printed (and left | > > > blank) even if the --lxc option is not specified. | > > > | > > > $ /usr/local/bin/lxc-ps -n foo | > > > CONTAINER PID TTY TIME CMD | > > > 19525 pts/2 00:00:01 bash | > > > 20311 pts/2 00:00:00 lxc-ps | > > > 20312 pts/2 00:00:00 ps | > > | > > For me the error in the script is | > > to report default pid of ps command, | > > rather than to report the pids of specified 'foo' | > > container in this case. | > > | > > So a patch should address this point, | > > rather to remove the container column. | > | > In fact there is no error in the script :) | > The -n option for lxc-ps is a ps option ! Ah, good point. Like Serge pointed, I got the -n mixed up with other lxc- commands. Even so, I still think the blank CONTAINER column is misleading. Does it mean that the listed processes are not part of any container ? Like /bin/ps which prints, say the PGID column, only when selected, wouldn't it make sense to print the CONTAINER column only when necessary ? Thanks, Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
