linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/platform/uv/BAU: Add status_mmr

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:   Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:07:10 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andrew Banman <abanman@....com>
cc:     mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
        mike.travis@....com, rja@....com, sivanich@....com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/platform/uv/BAU: Add status_mmr_loc to locate
 message status bits

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017, Andrew Banman wrote:

> The location of the ERROR and BUSY status bits depends on the descriptor
> index, i.e. the CPU, of the message. We determine this location ahead of
> the wait_completion loop to avoid repeating the calculation.
> 
> Split out the status location calculation into a new routine,
> status_mmr_loc, to be used within each uv*_wait_completion routine.

And the reason for this is? You just tell WHAT you are doing, not the WHY.

Looking at the patch which implements the uv4 wait function it uses the
thing as well. So for the casual reader there is no point.

The only reason i figured why you want to do that is to reduce the number
of arguments to the wait function, correct?

If yes, then spell it out. If no, please enlighten me.

Thanks,

	tglx