linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804280924270.3119@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions



On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> How about making the optimization controlled by a config switch so
> arch maintainers can decide whether they want to enable the constant
> optimization or unconditionally call the lib function ?

No.

This is just making that damn header line look worse and worse.

Is there a _reason_ to optimize this stupid function this way?

		Linus
--
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/