From: Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@gmail.com>,
kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:57:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1HtWAv-00028d-9l@flower> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A015B4E12@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
* From: "Luck, Tony"
* Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:45:49 -0700
>> So as ALIGN macro does the same work as ROUNDUP,
>
> Although it is mathematically the same operation, the
> semantic associations of the name are important too.
[]
> Maybe this is because I started out in mathematics before
> discovering that computers were so much fun, or maybe it
> is a British-English bias ... I can't tell, but it makes
> sense to me to use ROUNDUP in some places, and ALIGN in
> others.
I agree. I came from neither one (still coming); first look and vague
semantics of ALIGN macro, English confusion, a bit of laziness, led me to
stupid messages about aligning, Linus being so kind to reply, a couple of
months ago. Anyway i did that after some patching and re-patching that
macro by gurus :).
> If ROUNDUP isn't available everywhere, then it should be. To
> avoid code duplication perhaps we should add:
>
> #define ROUNDUP(size, len) ALIGN((size), (len))
>
> and delete the previous ROUNDUP definition?
And i would vote for "align" via "round".
____
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@gmail.com>,
kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:57:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1HtWAv-00028d-9l@flower> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A015B4E12@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
* From: "Luck, Tony"
* Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:45:49 -0700
>> So as ALIGN macro does the same work as ROUNDUP,
>
> Although it is mathematically the same operation, the
> semantic associations of the name are important too.
[]
> Maybe this is because I started out in mathematics before
> discovering that computers were so much fun, or maybe it
> is a British-English bias ... I can't tell, but it makes
> sense to me to use ROUNDUP in some places, and ALIGN in
> others.
I agree. I came from neither one (still coming); first look and vague
semantics of ALIGN macro, English confusion, a bit of laziness, led me to
stupid messages about aligning, Linus being so kind to reply, a couple of
months ago. Anyway i did that after some patching and re-patching that
macro by gurus :).
> If ROUNDUP isn't available everywhere, then it should be. To
> avoid code duplication perhaps we should add:
>
> #define ROUNDUP(size, len) ALIGN((size), (len))
>
> and delete the previous ROUNDUP definition?
And i would vote for "align" via "round".
____
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: "Milind Arun Choudhary" <milindchoudhary@gmail.com>,
<kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
<discuss@x86-64.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:57:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1HtWAv-00028d-9l@flower> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A015B4E12@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
* From: "Luck, Tony"
* Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:45:49 -0700
>> So as ALIGN macro does the same work as ROUNDUP,
>
> Although it is mathematically the same operation, the
> semantic associations of the name are important too.
[]
> Maybe this is because I started out in mathematics before
> discovering that computers were so much fun, or maybe it
> is a British-English bias ... I can't tell, but it makes
> sense to me to use ROUNDUP in some places, and ALIGN in
> others.
I agree. I came from neither one (still coming); first look and vague
semantics of ALIGN macro, English confusion, a bit of laziness, led me to
stupid messages about aligning, Linus being so kind to reply, a couple of
months ago. Anyway i did that after some patching and re-patching that
macro by gurus :).
> If ROUNDUP isn't available everywhere, then it should be. To
> avoid code duplication perhaps we should add:
>
> #define ROUNDUP(size, len) ALIGN((size), (len))
>
> and delete the previous ROUNDUP definition?
And i would vote for "align" via "round".
____
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-30 21:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-12 20:31 [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64 Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-12 20:43 ` Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-12 20:43 ` [KJ] [PATCH " Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-12 21:13 ` [KJ] [PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64, Luck, Tony
2007-04-12 21:13 ` [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64 Luck, Tony
2007-04-12 21:13 ` Luck, Tony
2007-04-13 4:31 ` Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-13 4:43 ` Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-13 4:43 ` [KJ] [PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64, Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-04-13 16:45 ` Luck, Tony
2007-04-13 16:45 ` [KJ][PATCH 02/03]ROUND_UP|DOWN macro cleanup in arch/ia64,x86_64 Luck, Tony
2007-04-13 16:45 ` Luck, Tony
2007-05-30 21:57 ` Oleg Verych [this message]
2007-05-30 21:57 ` Oleg Verych
2007-05-30 21:57 ` Oleg Verych
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1HtWAv-00028d-9l@flower \
--to=olecom@flower.upol.cz \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=milindchoudhary@gmail.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.