linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/efi: print size in binary units in efi_print

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]

Message-ID: <1453735534.2363.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:25:34 -0800
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Elliott <elliott@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/efi: print size in binary units in
 efi_print_memmap

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 10:31 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 10:03 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 19:18 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > If the goal is to have a clean interface reporting only the
> > > > first 
> > > > four significant figures and a size exponent, then a helper
> > > > would 
> > > > be much better than trying to open code this ad hoc.
> > > 
> > > No. You get it wrong. The initial idea was (actually not mine,
> > > see
> > > authorship) to print an exact number with units and reduce
> > > whenever
> > > it's possible, i.e number is a multiplication of certain unit.
> > 
> > so you must implement the original idea no matter how inconsistent
> > it
> > leads us to be?  Is it wrong to try to do better?
> 
> For both comments I prefer to hear Matt's opinion as he is maintainer
> of EFI stuff.
> 
> My role in this all is to reduce the code base by avoiding 'not
> invented here' syndrome.

To get up to the starting blocks on that one, you need a usable
interface.  Neither of the series has that for lib/string_helper.c, so
this is a NAK to both of those parts.

I already told you how to do it in a way that creates a maintainable
interface.  It looks obvious to me and I was politely waiting for you
to produce it, but if you're saying your not able to, I suppose I can
produce the patch.

James