linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <47ED4D3102000078000493D7@public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:55:29 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	<mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes

>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 03/27/08 9:41 AM >>>
>
>* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
>
>> Please revert it for the time being, I've got a better version (i.e. 
>> without extra dead code being generated) that I intended to submit 
>> once I know whether the other issues pointed out in the description on 
>> the original patch also should be adjusted. Of course, that could also 
>> be done incrementally, but I would think overhauling the whole file at 
>> once wouldn't be a bad thing...
>
>since it appears to cause no problems in x86.git (it passed a lot of 
>testing already) i'd prefer to keep it (so that we can see any other 
>side-effects of touching this code) - could you send your improvements 
>as a delta against x86.git/latest? [or is there any outright bug caused 
>by your changes that necessiates a revert?]

That's fine with me (and no, there's no bug in there other than the
mentioned dead code generation).

Jan
--
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/