Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> [2009-08-24 09:43]:* Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The reason that I kept 2ULL<<30 instead of 1ULL<<31 is that '1<<30' is exactly 1G, so 2ULL<<30 can be easily read as 2G. ;)i have no trouble reading 1ULL<<31 as 2G ;-) OTOH, the logic and pattern of the comparisons (especially without the comment) looked odd at first sight, until i noticed this.Why not just something like #define KBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL) #define MBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024)#define GBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024*1024) #define TBYTE(x) ((x)*1024ULL*1024*1024*1024)I find GBYTE(2) much easier to read than 1ULL<<31. Honestly, I would add a comment '/* 2G */' if I would write 1ULL<<31 in own code. But I'm of course not one of that super kernel hackers. ;-)
Yeah, great. Here we only need MBYTES() and GBYTES(). ;) Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|