linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: Less checks in zram_bvec

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:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:03:49 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: Less checks in zram_bvec_write() after error
 detection

>> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
>> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
> 
> by 'more efficient' you mean saving cpu cycles on 'bvec->bv_len != PAGE_SIZE'
> comparison in exception/error path?

Yes …


> ...
> check_strm:
> 	if (zstrm)
> 		zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm);
> 	if (is_partial_io(bvec)) {
> free_uncmem:
> 		kfree(uncmem);
> 	}
> ...

I propose to jump over two sanity checks.


> no.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,
Markus
--
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/