linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86: memtest: introduce array to store memtest patterns

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:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:24:07 +0100
From:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86: memtest: introduce array to store memtest
	patterns

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 09:52:31AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > -#define _MAX_MEM_PATTERNS 4
> > +static unsigned long patterns[] = {
> > +	0UL,
> > +	-1UL,
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +	0x5555555555555555UL,
> > +	0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaUL,
> > +#else
> > +	0x55555555UL,
> > +	0xaaaaaaaaUL,
> > +#endif
> > +};
> 
> Why not just use u64 for the pattern even on 32 bits?

I just assumed that this was a settled thing.

Yinghai, was there a specific reason why you did not use an u64 for
the memory test pattern on 32-bit?
(See commit 1f067167a83d1c7f80437fd1d32b55508aaca009 "x86: seperate
memtest from init_64.c")

If not I'll adapt this and send out a new patch set.


Regards,

Andreas


--
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/