linux-kernel - Re: How to document dimension units for virtual files?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:18:31 -0500
From:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mschwid2@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: How to document dimension units for virtual files?

On Nov 09, 2006, at 18:15:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Anyway, Greg's opinion was that we should just document units in  
> documentation and not pollute names with that. I'm not sure if it  
> works for battery (because of current:mA vs. current:mW confusion).

Well, IMO you should never have "current:mW" in any form whatsoever  
anyways.  Electrically it makes no sense; it's like saying  
"height:grams".  Watts are an indication of power emitted or consumed  
per unit time (as opposed to current/amperage which counts only the  
number of electrons and not the change in energy), so perhaps  
"power_flow:mW" or "power_consumption:mW" would make more sense?

I can conceivably see a need for a "current:mJ_per_s" versus  
"current:mW" depending on the hardware-reported units, but never both  
at the same time.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/