From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264193AbRFXMZh>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:25:37 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S265746AbRFXMZ2>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:25:28 -0400
Received: from juicer13.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.21]:27872 "EHLO
	mailin1.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264193AbRFXMZU>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:25:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3B35DC3D.6D2DC9C@bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:25:33 +1000
From: Allan Duncan <allan.d@bigpond.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre5 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com>
CC: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
In-Reply-To: <200106240249.f5O2nIF07215@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <m3n16yjmkl.fsf@linux.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, however
in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than
the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the
garden path.