On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 05:11:18 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

quoted

Some of the 2.4 semantics just don't make sense. I would not find it
difficult to explain what I believe correct semantics to be in a written
document.

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:57:56PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:

IMO this is a must for such files (and be it only some comments above
the code implementing them). I'm afraid that statm is carrying too much
historical baggage, though -- you would add yet another interpretation
of those 7 fields.
Tools reading statm would have to be updated anyway, so I'd rather
think about what could be done with a new (or just different) file.

Okay, could you write up a "specification" for what you want reported,
then I can cook up a new file or some such for you?

Thanks.


-- wli
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>