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

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:   Tue, 23 May 2017 16:49:57 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM

On 05/23/2017 02:08 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 09:02 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:11:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2017 16:47:42 +0530 Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are many places where we define size either left shifting integers
>>>> or multiplying 1024s without any generic definition to fall back on. But
>>>> there are couples of (powerpc and lz4) attempts to define these standard
>>>> memory sizes. Lets move these definitions to core VM to make sure that
>>>> all new usage come from these definitions eventually standardizing it
>>>> across all places.
>>> Grep further - there are many more definitions and some may now
>>> generate warnings.
>>>
>>> Newly including mm.h for these things seems a bit heavyweight.  I can't
>>> immediately think of a more appropriate place.  Maybe printk.h or
>>> kernel.h.
>> IFF we do these kernel.h is the right place.  And please also add the
>> MiB & co variants for the binary versions right next to the decimal
>> ones.
> Those defined in the patch are binary, not decimal. Do we even need
> decimal ones?
> 

I can define KiB, MiB, .... with the same values as binary.
Did not get about the decimal ones, we need different names
for them holding values which are multiple of 1024 ?