| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070227131840.672d6932@localhost> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:18:40 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] udivdi3: 64 bit divide On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:24:37 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:35:17 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > The kernel already has several implmentations and usages of 64 by 64 > > bit divide. > > > > Although it is significantly slower, there are places that need it so > > provide one generic version using scaling, and allow existing platform > > versions to continue. > > The reason we implement 64/32 via do_div() is, for better or for worse, to > make people think before they use it. And to make it stand out, and so > that we discover places that are using it by accident, where they could use > something cheaper. > > However your implementation of the presumably even more expensive 64/64 > allows us to do 64/64 with a plain old "/" operator. > > If the do_div() philosophy is any good then we should surely repeat it for > 64/64, no? > Then we should pull the existing udivdi3 implementations? - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists