[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090824082148.GA16457@mail1.bwalle.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:21:49 +0200
From: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, andi@...stfloor.org, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, avorontsov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [Patch 5/8] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> [2009-08-24 09:43]:
> * Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The reason that I kept 2ULL<<30 instead of 1ULL<<31 is that '1<<30' is
> > exactly 1G, so 2ULL<<30 can be easily read as 2G. ;)
>
> i have no trouble reading 1ULL<<31 as 2G ;-) OTOH, the logic and
> pattern of the comparisons (especially without the comment) looked
> odd at first sight, until i noticed this.
Why not just something like
#define KBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL)
#define MBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024)
#define GBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024*1024)
#define TBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024*1024*1024)
I find GBYTE(2) much easier to read than 1ULL<<31. Honestly, I would
add a comment '/* 2G */' if I would write 1ULL<<31 in own code.
But I'm of course not one of that super kernel hackers. ;-)
Regards,
Bernhard
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists