On Jan 26, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > * should we enforce the ordering of pages size+count structures ? I am > sorting by page size for now
Seems like a neighborly thing to do. If it's not hard, I say keep that functionality. > * how is the pages array terminated ? size = 0 ? or both size and count > = 0 ? if some OS fail to give the size of normal pages or huge pages, we > might have count !=0 while size = 0 in some cases. > * or should we add pages_count to the memory strcuture to explictly > store the length of the pages array ? If there's a question about what some OS's may do (e.g., report 0), then I'd be in favor of explicitly storing the pages_count. Who knows; someone may need to allocate some resources based on the length of that array (E.g., a GUI showing all the different page sizes); so if that length is available without the application needing to traverse the array just to count the length, that's another neighborly thing to do. (for the purposes of this email, "neighborly" = "nice to do and might be useful to some people, but not strictly required and I wouldn't fight if we didn't do it") -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
