| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:11:28 +0100 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: Move arches to use common unaligned access Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> wrote: > -#ifndef _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > -#define _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > - > +#ifndef _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ > +#define _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ Why? > - * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memcpy. > + * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memmov. That's memmove, not memmov. Any why memmove, not memcpy? Is __tmp likely to overlap with *ptr? Also, for FRV, I think calling memmove/memcpy for MMU kernels may be the wrong thing to do... I'm sort of leaning towards doing the same thing as NOMMU kernels and just using your inline ones. The advantage of the inline ones is that they are quicker and probably involve fewer instructions executed; whereas using memcpy/memmove may end up with smaller, but slower code. Hmmm... Maybe key on CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE? David -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists