[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87d1as6ifk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:55:43 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <michaele@....ibm.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists