Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:54:03 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Proposed new sysctl MIB nodes Message-ID: <p05200f1eba807c5b0e1d@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20030225005912.GA1583@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030224.174742.21056478.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030225005912.GA1583@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:59 PM -0800 2/24/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 05:47:42PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
>>
> > I'd like to propose new HW_PHYSPAGES and HW_USERPAGES MIB nodes
> > that return the same information, but in a 32-bit page count,
> > instead. The implementation is left as an exercise to the reader.
> > I just want to get consensus on the names, so that I can tell
> > the GCC people about it, and have it work on all the BSD
> > platforms (as their current sysctl code does).
>
>What's the reason to not use a 64-bit entity whether it represents
>bytes or pages?
>
>Or to be more presice, an integral entity that can be used to cast
>to from a pointer without data loss?
Jason first asked his question on the bsd-api mailing list (which
hopefully has people from all the main BSD's on it). In a later
message on that mailing list, he replied to a similar question:
> How about simply having a total memory count in quads
> instead? That way we won't run out when we pass 2^48
> or 49th bytes in 10 or 15 years.
Ok, a u_quad (page count) it is.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05200f1eba807c5b0e1d>