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
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists