linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support

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]

Message-ID: <4cefeab80705282255j7757905aia7b45ea5eddf5f5f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 11:25:52 +0530
From:	"Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm-cc@...top.org,
	linuxcompressed-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>,
	"Bret Towe" <magnade@...il.com>,
	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6

On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:

<snip>

>
> I have not seen any explanations:
> - Why did the upstream author write the code that way?
> - Why are your changes correct?
> - Why do your changes allow the compiler to produce faster code?
>
> The upstream author of the code is available - and he might be able to
> help you getting answers. No matter whether your changes are incorrect
> or correct optimizations that should go upstream, in both cases
> discussing these issues with upstream is the best solution.

The changelog I posted along with patch mentions all the changes I
made. I thought we will find all problems with this changelog in hand
and considering that its  just ~500 LOC.   But still, ok, asking
author himself will be good if he replies. I will mail him detailed
changelog and seek his feedback on this. This should answer all of
your questions.

>
> And testing is nice, but if you broke some case that's outside of your
> tests you'll never notice.
>

Yes. We cannot come up with exhaustive set of test cases to cover all
cases. But assuming that _original_ version is right and taking the
chagelog we should be able to verify if the porting is correct.


- Nitin
-
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/