linux-kernel - Re: Specific support for Intel Atom architecture

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, 12 May 2009 10:45:00 -0700
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Specific support for Intel Atom architecture

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> The problem is that you can't express the situations where
> movbe is better than bswap (you need both and the old and the new
> value) in inline assembler in a way that gcc decides automatically.

True.  But I was mostly thinking about loads from memory.  A quick
search for ntoh*/hton* shows code like

        u_int16_t queue_num = ntohs(nfmsg->res_id);

If there would be a ntohs_load() macro movbe could be used.
--
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/