linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Faster ext2_clear

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:02:20 -0500
From:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Faster ext2_clear_inode()

On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:00 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > 
> > Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
> > empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
> 
> Is that your opinion or have you actually measured a difference?
> I strongly suspect that compilers are smart enough to optimize away a
> call to an empty static function.

It's not a direct call to a static function.  It is called as a
super_ops method.  I don't think the overhead is very significant, but
it doesn't look like it could do any harm.

-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html