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, 2 Apr 2018 17:30:54 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@...il.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Tal Gilboa <talgi@...lanox.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Ariel Elior <ariel.elior@...ium.com>,
        Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        everest-linux-l2@...ium.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/14] PCI: Add pcie_bandwidth_capable() to compute max
 supported link bandwidth

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> +/* PCIe speed to Mb/s reduced by encoding overhead */
> +#define PCIE_SPEED2MBS_ENC(speed) \
> +       ((speed) == PCIE_SPEED_16_0GT ? (16000*(128/130)) : \
> +        (speed) == PCIE_SPEED_8_0GT  ?  (8000*(128/130)) : \
> +        (speed) == PCIE_SPEED_5_0GT  ?  (5000*(8/10)) : \
> +        (speed) == PCIE_SPEED_2_5GT  ?  (2500*(8/10)) : \
> +        0)
> +

Should this be "(speed * x ) / y" instead? wouldn't they calculate
128/130 and truncate that to zero before multiplying by the speed? Or
are compilers smart enough to do this the other way to avoid the
losses?

Thanks,
Jake

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ