Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1652417 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-29 13:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-29 13:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com> - 2017-05-29 13:00 +0200
| From | Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 13:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM |
| Message-ID | <tMqz0-77t-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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. cheers
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web