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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:44:43 +0800 From: Zeng Zhaoxiu <zhaoxiu.zeng@...il.com> To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] bitops: add parity functions OK, I will do the V2 patches soon. In addition, the best is to provide asm version parity functions for powerpc, sparc, and x86. 在 2016年03月28日 01:56, Sam Ravnborg 写道: >>> Any particular reason that you select one approach over the other >>> in the different cases? >> No particular reason, just like the architecture's __arch_hweightN. > The general recommendatiosn these days are to use static inline > for code to get better type check. > And it would also be nice to be consistent across architectures. > > Sam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists