linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory: of_memory.c: remove unnecessary initialization

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:26:36 +0800
From:	"Li, Zhen-Hua" <lizhenhua.dev@...il.com>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Cong Ding <dinggnu@...il.com>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>, Aneesh V <aneesh@...com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory: of_memory.c: remove unnecessary initialization

Infact, your patch does remove an orl operation, but add a new "move" operation.

You can test such two functions:
int func1(int rm1, int rm2){
        int i = 0;
        i |= rm1;
        i |= rm2;
}

and

int func(int rm1, int rm2){
        int i;
        i = rm1;
        i |= rm2;
}

Use gcc to compile them to assemble with "-S" operation, and you will find it.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
<santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 December 2012 07:25 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Santosh Shilimkar
>> <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 04 December 2012 04:56 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the initialization of variable ret is unnecessary, we can remove it
>>>> while
>>>> save
>>>> one time "or" operation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Ding <dinggnu@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks ok.
>>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@...com>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the patch, but I don't think it matters enough to apply it.
>> The existing code isn't wrong.
>>
> The patch was removing an additional operation and hence i didn't
> contest it. I agree with your comment though.
>
> Regards
> Santosh
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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/