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. > > Difference: > > - 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
