From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:05:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:04:53 -0400 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([194.39.131.53]:30864 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:04:43 -0400 From: Christoph Rohland To: andersen@codepoet.org Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [Patch] sysinfo compatibility In-Reply-To: <20010821114640.A25151@codepoet.org> <20010822094554.A9760@codepoet.org> Organisation: SAP LinuxLab Date: 22 Aug 2001 18:04:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20010822094554.A9760@codepoet.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SAP: out X-SAP: out Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Erik, On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Wed Aug 22, 2001 at 08:44:39AM +0200, Christoph Rohland wrote: >> >> BTW I appreciate the basics of the change for 2.4, but I don't >> agree that we should break cases which worked before. (And the >> comment in the sources is plain wrong that 2.2 failed in these >> cases) > > But 2.2 _did_ fail. If you take a linux 2.2.x system, add 4 Gigs of > swap, and then use sysinfo(), the sizes you get back are junk... But if you add 3.9GB it is ok. Also with 3.9GB RAM. And that's a quite common machine in our environment. If one of these overflows I agree that the 2.4 scheme is better. But we should keep compatibility as long as we have no single field which overflows. And that's what my patch implements. Greetings Christoph