Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2002 02:04:49 -0500 | From | Benjamin LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] size-in-bytes |
| |
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:43:38PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote: > We want to stay with the shift counts. They should be the primary currency > of size measurement. You can add shift counts together and get nice, compact > code, whereas with absolute size you often have to ugly things - e.g., it's a > pain to divide by blocksize when you have it as an absolute number, it's easy > when you have it as a shift. > > If you are going to the trouble of fixing this, please don't use absolute > size as the primary measure, use a shift count.
Most of this is targetted at userland which needs byte counts (size in sectors was a bug introduced after the original BLKGETSIZE64 went in). Using the number of sectors in kernel is perhaps more efficient, but it is a microoptimization that won't show up on any benchmarks.
-ben - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |