| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904221654370.32682@qirst.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:59:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] __ffs64() On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > I'd like to add a new bitop, __ffs64() which I need in order to fix a > bug in GFS2. The question is, where should it go? I think the location is right. > On 64 bit arches, __ffs64() would be a synonym for __ffs(), but on 32 > bit arches it degenerates to a conditional plus a call to __ffs(). I'm > assuming that there would not be a lot of point in optimising this > operation on 32 bit arches even if such an instruction was available, so > that I should do something like the below patch. > > Does that seem reasonable, or should I give it a separate header file > under asm-generic/bitops/ like some of the similar operations? It looks > like I'd have to touch a lot of other files if I were to go that route, One issue may be that some 32 bit architectures have a better way of doing 64 bit ffs. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists