Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM

From	Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM
Date	2017-06-09 05:00 +0200
Message-ID	<tQijw-4dh-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <tKc78-8iP-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKdwe-Fm-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKgaK-2wv-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKyhk-79n-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tMqz0-77t-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/29/2017 04:25 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>> So the question is are we willing to do all these changes across
>> the tree to achieve common definitions of KB, MB, GB, TB in the
>> kernel ? Is it worth ?
> 
> No I don't think it's worth the churn.
> 
> But have you looked at using the "proper" names, ie. KiB, MiB, GiB?
> 
> AFAICS the only clash is:
> 
> drivers/mtd/ssfdc.c:#define KiB(x)	( (x) * 1024L )
> drivers/mtd/ssfdc.c:#define MiB(x)	( KiB(x) * 1024L )
> 
> Which would be easy to convert.

Sure, will take a look into generalizing KiB/MiB/GiB instead of
current proposal for KB/MB/GB.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-06-09 05:00 +0200

csiph-web