On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Vasil Dimov wrote:
> >I think it would be better not to test if it is linux or freebsd but
> >rather if /proc/meminfo exists and whether contains the necessary
> >information.
>
> That's in effect what it does. It tests it by trying to open the
> file. If that fails, it defaults to the old behaviour.
That's great!
>
> What I meant was it would be useful to get the information some
> other way on FreeBSD etc if the proc file can't be read.
Yeah, I will take a look at it. At a first glance the following sysctls
are available under FreeBSD:
hw.physmem: 1065152512
hw.usermem: 976523264
hw.realmem: 1073414144
> Also, I am not sure whether the proc file has the same format
> on FreeBSD
If the native FreeBSD /proc is mounted (e.g. mount_procfs procfs /proc)
there will not be /proc/meminfo, but if a Linux /proc is mounted
(e.g. mount_linprocfs linprocfs /proc) then /proc/meminfo will exist and
contain the expected fields. Anyway none of these is mounted by default.
> (it should also fail gracefully, but if /proc
> is mounted on FreeBSD it could instead use whatever the
> FreeBSD format is).
I think that the FreeBSD's native /proc does not contain the information
in question.
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Attachment:
pgpx41RLFTev8.pgp
Description: PGP signature