linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] Net: ath5k, kconfig changes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:58:15 +0300
From:	"Nick Kossifidis" <mickflemm@...il.com>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Net: ath5k, kconfig changes

2007/8/31, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@...il.com>:
> 2007/8/30, John W. Linville <linville@...driver.com>:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:38:09AM +0300, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> > > 2007/8/28, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>:
> >
> > > > Also this whole patch seems rather pointless.  It saves only
> > > > very little and turns the driver into a complete ifdef maze.
> >
> > > Also most
> > > people will use 5212 code only, 5211 cards are on some old laptops and
> > > 5210, well i couldn't even find  a 5210 for actual testing :P
> >
> > FWIW, I'd bet dollars to donuts that distros will enable them all
> > together.
> >
> > Is saving code space the only reason to turn these off?  How much
> > space do you save?
> >
> > Is there some way you can isolate and/or limit the number of ifdef
> > blocks further?  If so, we might consider a version of this patch
> > that depends on EMBEDDED or somesuch...?
> >
> > John
>
> O.K. as a first step i'll limit 5210 code only then, just an option
> like "support older 5210 chipsets" which is going to be off by default
> instead of 3 options. It's not just saving space, it's also saving
> some runtime checks. It's not really a gain in performance though,
> most checks are done during initialization and dfs setup, i just
> thought it would be usefull to save as much cpu as possible.
>

Well after some thought i removed them all, there is no real gain from
this in most cases (that ppl will use newer 5212 chips and
combatibles).



-- 
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
-
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/