Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:50:54 -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: <D29C3B5E-5BB1-40B5-ACE3-7F560DCAE86D@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinEcT__Wtc6LkSyqqMnQwuKVUbZC4dPZvZH_dSX@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Xin LI wrote: > FYI I have a patch and I have incorporated some of Alexander's idea. >=20 > Difference: >=20 > - Use of both HN_DIVISOR_1000 and HN_IEC_PREFIXES triggers an > assertion. I think it doesn't make sense to return since this is an > API violation and we should just tell the caller explicitly; > - DIVISOR_1000 and !1000 cases use just same prefixes, so merge them > while keeping divisor intact; > - Make prefixes table consistently long. I have no strong opinion on > this one, though, it's just what my original version used and I can > change it to the way Alexander did if there is an advantage of doing > that way. I did this in my first iteration, but switched to the array version = after. Either is good, honestly. > (Note, it seems that we use HN_ prefix for both 'scale' and 'flags', I > have sorted them by value but HN_IEC_PREFIXES should really belong to > the flags group). How did you guys deal with programs like df that now need to do special = buffer size hacks to get consistent results? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D29C3B5E-5BB1-40B5-ACE3-7F560DCAE86D>