Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:23:30 -0600 | From | "Ray Van Tassle-CRV004" <> | Subject | Re: GB vs. MB (End this thread!) |
| |
The problem here is STANDARDS and CONVENTIONS. Even though many of us may think that the defacto industry convention (1GB = 1000 MB) is wrong, and should be "1GB = 1024 MB", we are pissing into the wind. Let's try to stay with the mainstream.
A wise man told me once, "Pick your battles. If you persist on spending too much effort on little things that aren't really that important, you won't have the strength/credibility for the things that ARE important."
My $.02. Ray ________________________________________________________ To: andersee@et.byu.edu@INTERNET Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu@INTERNET From: koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de@INTERNET on Wed, Dec 4, 1996 7:50 AM Subject: z-Re: GB vs. MB (End this thread!)
two comments on this thread from me who originated it (much to my surprise;) to get it finally stopped again (hopefully):
> Please people, end this thread! Those who want to make changes to the way > the kernel does things are invited to make patches. When the kernel > behaves exactly the way you think it should, send the patch to > linux-kernel, Linus, and/or the maintainer of the driver you wish changed, > with a full explanation of why you believe your patch does the > RightThing(tm). If the driver maintainer or Linus also believes that your > patch does the right thing, it will be included in the kernel. > > If you want to change stuff, don't talk about it. Send a patch. > End of discussion. End of thread. Followups without patches > /dev/null
don't know if you saved the original mail for this thread which I've written.
this mail was exactly a one-line-patch to fix a problem (but not really that one which the now discussed; the original problme was 1000*2^20 vs. 1024*1^20)
with a two sentences of explanation.
> PLEASE : every time I got a message in this thread, I > thought "will they stop ?", and I'm starting to post > too... so the question is now : what do the concerned > guy think about this, considered what has been "discussed" > these last days (yes, the one who maintain this code)
I've to say hat I'm very suprised (and a bit disapointed) about the "discussion" in this thread.
I've now saved 50 mails for this thread (maybe I've missed a few) and absolutely noone really commented on my patch or the real problem which was *not* at all powers of 2 versus powers of 10 (should I send the original mail/patch again? probably no good idea to get this discussion down;)
when I realized after a few followups that there is some misunderstanding about the real topic of my patch I've send a 2nd short note the next day trying to make things clearer but this didn't help at all.
I guess everyone just read something about 2^20 vs. 10^6 and thought: ha, I've to give my $0.02 too (which sums up to exactly $1 right now ;-)
I think this thread was (since now it's stopped;) a horrible example about the signal/noise ratio in this list in general :-(
Harald
PS & ob-linux: oops, this mail got longer than I thougt first, so here is my patch again (please read and think about this and every mail before replying and commenting!) :
--- /soft/linux/drivers/scsi/sd.c Wed Apr 17 10:51:59 1996 +++ linux/drivers/scsi/sd.c Thu Apr 18 10:16:45 1996 @@ -1170,7 +1170,7 @@ } mb = rscsi_disks[i].capacity / 1024 * hard_sector / 1024; /* sz = div(m/100, 10); this seems to not be in the libr */ - m = (mb + 50) / 100; + m = (mb*1000 + 51200) / 1024 / 100 ; sz_quot = m / 10; sz_rem = m - (10 * sz_quot); printk ("SCSI device sd%c: hdwr sector= %d bytes."
-- All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____ be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\ 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\ \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|// Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
|  |