linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] IA64-IRQ: Use kmalloc_array() in sn_irq_lh

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:   Sat, 27 Aug 2016 17:40:06 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] IA64-IRQ: Use kmalloc_array() in sn_irq_lh_init()

On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 09:02 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > If you _really wanted to clear up this code and make it more
> > robust/better, it'd probably be nicer to convert the
> > struct list_head **sn_irq_lh to a single struct list_head *
> > That would be less data space overall given the alignment
> > waste of the individual allocs.
> Does this suggestion mean that I should drop my proposal
> around the software components "IRQ" and "TLB" for the system
> architecture "IA64" in such a questionable patch series?

While elimination of code duplication should be good,
what it means it you should avoid making changes that
are merely mechanical and strive to make changes that
improve code execution speed or reduce overall object
size while not impacting overall execution speed.