linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] cgroups: Shrink struct cgroup

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:	Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:52:34 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	"akpm >> Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cgroups: Shrink struct cgroup_subsys

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> bool active;
>> bool disabled;
>> ...
>>
>> ?
>>
>> With alignment 5-8 bool values == 8 bytes in 64-bit machine, compared to
>> 4 bytes with the approach this patch takes.
> 
> I meant specifying it as:
> 
> bool active:1;
> bool disabled:1;
> 

It won't compile, but unsigned char active:1 will do. ;)

> i.e. keeping the bit-sized flags but also keeping the bool semantics.
> Having said that, I'm not really sure why saving 12 bytes per
> subsystem is worth a patch.

Every thing that reduces code size (without sacrifice readability
and maintain maintainability) should be worth.

This is one of the reasons we accept patches that replacing
kmalloc+memset with kzalloc, which just saves 8 bytes in my box.
--
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/