linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86

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 Aug 2007 00:23:55 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> The return type of __scanbit() doesn't match the return type of
> find_{first,next}_bit().  Thus when you construct something like
> this:
> 
>    boolean ? __scanbit() : find_first_bit()

Why would you want to write this?  What is boolean?
Do they have different arguments?

It's on my todo list for some time to special case
f_f_b() and friends for smaller arguments. Would
that eliminate this construct?

-Andi
-
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/