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
