I'd rather see a new /proc/memoryinfo with a lot of thought given to the
current and future structure of it than adding kludges into what already
exists.
Userland utils need to be more tolerant of "junk" and not rely on static
content locations.
-d
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > The only thing it can be a problem for an alternate VM if there
> > > would be user<->kernel API differences realted to the very
> > > internal of the memory management so if possible I'd like if
> > > that could be avoided.
> >
> > Sure, lets get rid of /proc/meminfo ;)
> >
> > But serious, if /proc/meminfo isn't there to give information
> > about the internal memory use of the system, why do we have
> > it? I don't see /proc/meminfo doing anything else than that...
>
> Andrea is worried about userland utilities getting confused
> because of differences in /proc/meminfo for various VM systems.
> Maybe it would be enough to put the entries that are
> VM-version specific after the generic ones, and preface them
> with the name of the VM system, e.g.
-- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:16 EST