linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] typechecking for get_unaligned/put

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:	Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] typechecking for get_unaligned/put_unaligned



On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Hrm...  I'm not sure that I buy that argument - we have relatively few
> callers of these suckers and I doubt that it will affect compile time
> in a measurable way.

I was more worried that it's getting included from other include files, 
and that the overhead is just the compiler front-end, whether used or not. 

But you're right, it seems like this is one of the well-behaved header 
files that isn't unnecessarily included everywhere ;)

So I have no real arguments in that case.

> FWIW, that reminds me - I ought to resurrect the patchset killing bogus 
> dependencies; I modified sparse to collect stats on how many times each 
> #include actually pulls a header during build, added those to data on 
> dependencies (from .cmd.*) and got interesting results.

Yeah, we tend to include a _ton_ of stuff that we probably don't need to.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/