Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:38:06 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Switching to [KMGTPE]i prefixes? Message-ID: <89A0FF76-7907-4815-85D2-F87968939B66@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinQAwLCwZi7VXJKB90wn0kw0FvfHQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110325002115.GA323@freebsd.org> <20110325015508.GA14565@freebsd.org> <20110325024658.GA19544@freebsd.org> <336A9ACD-29BF-41C9-BC25-917CC1E4587D@bsdimp.com> <20110325195325.GA69264@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinEcT__Wtc6LkSyqqMnQwuKVUbZC4dPZvZH_dSX@mail.gmail.com> <D29C3B5E-5BB1-40B5-ACE3-7F560DCAE86D@bsdimp.com> <BANLkTinQAwLCwZi7VXJKB90wn0kw0FvfHQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Xin LI wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> How did you guys deal with programs like df that now need to do = special buffer size hacks to get consistent results? >=20 > I think it doesn't really matter - caller have to specify using IEC > prefixes explicitly, so old binaries won't be broken. They must be > updated to use the IEC prefixes. My patch had a 'force IEC prefixes' compile time option which did. However, you'll have to monkey around with df to get it to do the right = thing since the buffer sizes and such will need to be 1 longer for the = extra 'i' in the mix now... And it can' t be unconditional, since then = you'd get different results with the non IEC case. That's a short way of saying that this patch is necessary, but not = sufficient for the current system. We'll need a lot of tweaks to the = rest of the system for it to behave correctly. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?89A0FF76-7907-4815-85D2-F87968939B66>