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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49A5F3DB.5000401@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:43:55 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	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]

David Howells wrote:
> 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"
> 

Well, the latter is obviously in vast majority, but that doesn't seem to 
have anything to do with anything at all here...

	-hpa

--
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/