From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751771AbdFICyc (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:54:32 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:44651 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751499AbdFICya (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:54:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Define KB, MB, GB, TB in core VM To: Michael Ellerman , Anshuman Khandual , Vlastimil Babka , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton References: <20170522111742.29433-1-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170522141149.9ef84bb0713769f4af0383f0@linux-foundation.org> <20170523070227.GA27864@infradead.org> <09a6bafa-5743-425e-8def-bd9219cd756c@suse.cz> <161638da-3b2b-7912-2ae2-3b2936ca1537@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <7f85724c-6fc1-bb51-11e4-15fc2f89372b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87d1as6ifk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:24:20 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d1as6ifk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable x-cbid: 17060902-0044-0000-0000-00000269D339 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17060902-0045-0000-0000-000006F8E182 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-09_01:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706090050 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/29/2017 04:25 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Anshuman Khandual 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.