Oh wait... You're right. This doesn't change the code how the code
works. My bad.
Still, it's better to just remove the condition instead of making the
condition even more complicated and confusing.
regards,
dan carpenter
___
devel mailing list
de...
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:19AM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Dan Carpenter
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:14:35AM +, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, that isn't right. Chris' patch is actually doing the right thing
> > > to check for uni
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:14:35AM +, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, that isn't right. Chris' patch is actually doing the right thing
> > to check for units > 1.
>
> It's not right because it discards the negative.
I don't think
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:14:35AM +, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
>
> Sorry, that isn't right. Chris' patch is actually doing the right thing
> to check for units > 1.
It's not right because it discards the negative.
> The proposed change above discards "mult"
> entirely, which breaks the users
On 2014/12/16, 2:41 AM, "Dan Carpenter" wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:41:49PM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
>> Units can be passed to lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper() via a suffix
>> (e.g., "...K", "...M", etc.) tacked onto the value. A comment states
>> that "specified units override the mult
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:41:49PM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
> Units can be passed to lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper() via a suffix
> (e.g., "...K", "...M", etc.) tacked onto the value. A comment states
> that "specified units override the multiplier," though the multiplier is
> overridden regard
Units can be passed to lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper() via a suffix
(e.g., "...K", "...M", etc.) tacked onto the value. A comment states
that "specified units override the multiplier," though the multiplier is
overridden regardless. Update the conditional logic so that it only
applies when units
