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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:52:37 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

[Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:45:55AM -0700]
> 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.
>

Ah... I see. So wouldn't you mind to just mentoin page.objects in comment
like 'since page.objects is u16' instead of bits_in magic? Anyone who
will (if any) changing page structure is to grep the sources and find
this comment and will fix MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE definition.

		- Cyrill -
--
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/