linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next

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: <20080309205132.GA9021@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:51:32 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit


* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:

> > >  #define BITOP_WORD(nr)		((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG)
> > > +#undef find_next_bit
> > > +#undef find_next_zero_bit
> > 
> > this bit looks weird - did you need it for testing?
> 
> Worse, it's needed to get x86_64 to compile.
> 
> They are defined in include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h (which gets included). 
> They are used to optimize the case where the bitmap size is known at 
> compile time and not larger than BITS_PER_LONG. Undeffing them here is 
> the easiest way to get things to compile, here.

ok - but this needs to be solved in a cleaner way. That build-time 
optimization needs to be pushed into generic code so that 32-bit x86 and 
other architectures can make use of it as well. The lib/find_next_bit.c 
functions should be named __find_next_bit() or so.

	Ingo
--
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/