> Please people, end this thread! Those who want to make changes to the way
> the kernel does things are invited to make patches. When the kernel
> behaves exactly the way you think it should, send the patch to
> linux-kernel, Linus, and/or the maintainer of the driver you wish changed,
> with a full explanation of why you believe your patch does the
> RightThing(tm). If the driver maintainer or Linus also believes that your
> patch does the right thing, it will be included in the kernel.
>
> If you want to change stuff, don't talk about it. Send a patch.
> End of discussion. End of thread. Followups without patches > /dev/null
don't know if you saved the original mail for this thread which I've written.
this mail was exactly a one-line-patch to fix a problem (but not really that one
which the now discussed; the original problme was 1000*2^20 vs. 1024*1^20)
with a two sentences of explanation.
> PLEASE : every time I got a message in this thread, I
> thought "will they stop ?", and I'm starting to post
> too... so the question is now : what do the concerned
> guy think about this, considered what has been "discussed"
> these last days (yes, the one who maintain this code)
I've to say hat I'm very suprised (and a bit disapointed) about the "discussion"
in this thread.
I've now saved 50 mails for this thread (maybe I've missed a few) and
absolutely noone really commented on my patch or the real problem which
was *not* at all powers of 2 versus powers of 10 (should I send the original
mail/patch again? probably no good idea to get this discussion down;)
when I realized after a few followups that there is some misunderstanding
about the real topic of my patch I've send a 2nd short note the next day
trying to make things clearer but this didn't help at all.
I guess everyone just read something about 2^20 vs. 10^6 and thought:
ha, I've to give my $0.02 too (which sums up to exactly $1 right now ;-)
I think this thread was (since now it's stopped;) a horrible example
about the signal/noise ratio in this list in general :-(
Harald
PS & ob-linux: oops, this mail got longer than I thougt first, so here is my
patch again (please read and think about this and every mail before
replying and commenting!) :
--- /soft/linux/drivers/scsi/sd.c Wed Apr 17 10:51:59 1996
+++ linux/drivers/scsi/sd.c Thu Apr 18 10:16:45 1996
@@ -1170,7 +1170,7 @@
}
mb = rscsi_disks[i].capacity / 1024 * hard_sector / 1024;
/* sz = div(m/100, 10); this seems to not be in the libr */
- m = (mb + 50) / 100;
+ m = (mb*1000 + 51200) / 1024 / 100 ;
sz_quot = m / 10;
sz_rem = m - (10 * sz_quot);
printk ("SCSI device sd%c: hdwr sector= %d bytes."
--
All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____
be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\
24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\
\ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
\ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|//
Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \
koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^