Re: [Nautilus-list] Tiny patch

[Soeren Sonnenburg <sonnenburg informatik hu-berlin de>]

On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 12:21, Glen Gray wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:52, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 17:12, Glen Gray wrote:
> > > Here is a small patch to 
> > > 
> > > 1) Change the hackish reporting of RAM size in Hardware View to a
> > > different hackish  formula that reports the RAM size more accurately
> > > with more RAM sizes than whats there. But it's still not correct.
> > 
> > It is still wrong, why did you ignore my previous post ?
> > 
> 
> I didn't ignore it. It still gives the same figure as the current
> formula that nautilus uses

Ok, sorry.

> Here is my bc session to prove
> 
> [root cruachann proc]# ll kcore
> -r--------    1 root     root     401571840 Apr  9 11:06 kcore

I just logged into some 384MB linux machine and it gave 402644992 as a
result making the formula work (kernel 2.4.17).

However when doing tests on machines with >=1GB ram they all return
939528192 which sound like the size is set to some fixed size.
128/256/512 mem sizes did work.

So ether the kernel is buggy or the documentation of /proc/kcore.

> ((((401571840 - 4096) + 1023)/1024) + 1023) / 1024
> 383

We should probably ask at lkml.

Soeren.