Re: [PATCH 1/1] Improve progress display in kB range.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, James Cloos wrote:

> >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Nicolas> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, James Cloos wrote:
> >> When progress.c:throughput_string() is called, the variable total
> >> invariably has its twelve least significant bits set.  Ie, it is
> >> always the case that:
> >> 
> >> total & 0xFFF == 0xFFF
> 
> Nicolas> Could you please explain ow you come to that conclusion?
> 
> Empirical evidence.
> 
> Even since the current progress was added, it has always shown nn.99 KiB
> in that range.  I added an extra snprintf(3) to show total in hex and it
> always ends in FFF.

Empirical evidence on my side shows the opposite.  I just did a fetch in 
my kernel repo and got:

   Receiving objects: 100% (1373/1373), 223.36 KiB, done.

> I presume the progress function is getting called just before total hits
> a page boundry.  In any case, the empirical evidence is clear.  And only
> even seeing .99 is annoying.  Hense the proposed patch.

I must NACK your patches.  Presumptions are not good enough 
justification for such a change, especially if results can't be 
reproduced.  That doesn't mean the code is completely bug free of 
course, but finding the source of the bug affecting you would be a far 
better course of action than simply turning our back on it.  Maybe you 
can tell us more about your environment?


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]