Would "NULL for anonymous allocations, since details related to them are not known." be ok ?
Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 09:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> a écrit : > At Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:42:45 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:00:58AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > Although we could just rip some words off, I'd like to propose instead > > > to add an explanation why it is not exposed for anonymous allocations, > > > like the column allocated_size. > > > > Indeed, there is a hiccup between what the code does and what the docs > > tell: the offset is not NULL for unused memory. > > > > > - The offset at which the allocation starts. NULL for anonymous > > > - allocations and unused memory. > > > + The offset at which the allocation starts. For anonymous > allocations, > > > + no information about individual allocations is available, so > the column > > > + will be NULL in that case. > > > > I'd say: let's be simple and just remove "and unused memory" because > > anonymous allocations are... Anonymous so you cannot know details > > related to them. That's something easy to reason about, and the docs > > were written originally to remain simple. > > Hmm. I don't object to that. Howerver, isn't the description for > allocated_size too verbose in that sense? > > regards. > > -- > Kyotaro Horiguchi > NTT Open Source Software Center >
