linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

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: <9679.1235612268@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:37:48 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Justin Chen <jchen@...st41.cup.hp.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.helgaas@...com,
	justin.chen@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> > But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
> > "static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.
> >
> 
> I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 8:1;
> the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a visual
> examination of the results shows that even if my line count is slighly off the
> lopsidedness is still dramatic.

Sorry, I meant:

"static inline type\nfunction_name" vs "static inline type function_name"

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/