linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

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.4.64.0810221144290.6054@quilx.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

> Looks really good for me (if it worth anything). But Christoph
> doesn't OO_SHIT inspired by u16 too which means we could use
> MAX_OBJ_PER_PAGE in form you mentoined but maybe we should define
>
> #define OO_SHIFT bits_in(page.objects) to point out why we use
> 16 not 14, not 18 or whatever? How do you think?


The choice of the bit size in page.objects is determined by the available 
bytes there. The choice of the OO_SHIFT (nice typo there) is determined by 
the use of a 32bit int that we want to cut into two halves.

--
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/