https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219155
Guido Falsi <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|New |Open CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Guido Falsi <[email protected]> --- It's not completely true that inactive, wired and buffer memory is not available to applications, in case of memory pressure some of that RAM can be reclaimed. In your description you talk about wired memory, but in the patch there's no trace of wired, only buf memory though. As a further note in head we now also have "laundry" memory which further complicates the accounting. That said it all boils down to what you are actually trying to measure. The main point though is that in the ports tree we are just porting software and are not supposed to change their logic, unless that's strictly needed to have it work in FreeBSD. So, if you think this software needs to account for memory in a different way you should report this upstream as a bug there, but diverging in functionality from the upstream in the FreeBSD port is not the correct way. That is unless I'm missing something in your patch. My opinion is that your patch should go upstream, and anyway needs refinements to account for the finer details of memory subsystem. We should anyway #ifdef the code specific to FreeBSD, or otherwise go with the generic code the upstream provides. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xfce To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
