linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261845110.7066@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
cc:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops


On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
>
>*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
>probability I should be using as my guideline.  I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and

;-)

19:1 <=> 95:5 <=> 95% <=> ratio=0.95  != 20.0 (=20/1)

>you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio).  The difference between

99:1 <=> 99% <=> ratio=0.99  != 100.0 (=100/1)

>the number of cycles saved/added is very compelling.  Given that I certainly
>agree with you that I'm using un/likely too much.  I'll re-evaluate and
>update my patch series then.
-
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/