| 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: <a781481a0705241212g787bae30md4b9e81aea465198@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:42:44 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com> To: "Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com> Cc: "Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 3 On 5/24/07, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com> wrote: > On 5/24/07, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com> wrote: > > Hmm. The wrappers would clearly be inline, but if we want a common > > low-level decompress function, we'd also need to introduce the "if (safe &&)" > > kind of tests for those differently-defined macros which could impact > > performance (for the _unsafe variant only, isn't it). By how much is the > > question, and whether we really care to avoid duplicating 50 lines of code > > to take that hit on the unsafe function (or vice versa). > > All this just to avoid that symlink? Oh, yes. And also to avoid the changes to the master Makefile, and the extra stuff in the other Makefile. And you'd even rid yourself of some #ifdef's in the actual code. Too many upsides! > What is so wrong with that? We never required this kind of thing before, why now? Also note that it requires all the extra stuff mentioned above ... why not do away with all that too. - 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