On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> NACK, this only addresses half of the review comments. > > Can you please explain 1207959552 is not 1GB? Do you happen to mean > 1000000000? The reason the term 'GiB' exists is because while GB might > mean 1000000000, its almost always misused to mean 1207959552. If > thats what you meant, Why do you want to use that value when you > yourself are saying that its less accurate? Also why is it so > important to use the less accurate value that these patches have to be > NACKed for it? I got all the answers after I found out that my `bc` alias (to `bc -l`) isn't there anymore so it was reporting: $ bc 1207959552 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 1 I'll resend with correction. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
