On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 07:40:36AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 2/5/21 5:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:07:07PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
> >> that is ambiguous between a hex digit and the e
On 2/5/21 5:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:07:07PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
>> that is ambiguous between a hex digit and the extremely large exibyte
>> suffix, as well as a 'B' suffix for bytes.
On 2/5/21 4:25 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 04.02.2021 22:07, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
>
> What about also deprecating 'E' suffix? (just my problem of reviewing
> previous patch)
No, we want to keep '1E' as a valid wa
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:07:07PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
> that is ambiguous between a hex digit and the extremely large exibyte
> suffix, as well as a 'B' suffix for bytes. In practice, people using
> hex inputs are speci
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 01:25:18PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 04.02.2021 22:07, Eric Blake wrote:
> >Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
>
> What about also deprecating 'E' suffix? (just my problem of reviewing
> previous patch)
Ha! What if pe
04.02.2021 22:07, Eric Blake wrote:
Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
What about also deprecating 'E' suffix? (just my problem of reviewing previous
patch)
that is ambiguous between a hex digit and the extremely large exibyte
suffix, as well as a 'B' suff
Supporting '0x20M' looks odd, particularly since we have an 'E' suffix
that is ambiguous between a hex digit and the extremely large exibyte
suffix, as well as a 'B' suffix for bytes. In practice, people using
hex inputs are specifying values in bytes (and would have written
0x200, or possibly
