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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <b819bdda-10ac-01be-9198-c2323ecd142a@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:24:20 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <michaele@....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

On 05/29/2017 04:25 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 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.

Sure, will take a look into generalizing KiB/MiB/GiB instead of
current proposal for KB/MB/GB.