linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add function to convert between calendar time andbroken-down time for universal use

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:	Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:20:18 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Zhaolei" <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add function to convert between calendar time
 andbroken-down time for universal use

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:56:55 +0800 "Zhaolei" <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> * From: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
> >> > +extern void gmtime(__kernel_time_t totalsecs,
> >> > +        unsigned int *year, unsigned int *mon, unsigned int *mday,
> >> > +        unsigned int *hour, unsigned int *min, unsigned int *sec,
> >> > +        unsigned int *wday, unsigned int *yday);
> >> > +extern void localtime(__kernel_time_t totalsecs,
> >> > +        unsigned int *year, unsigned int *mon, unsigned int *mday,
> >> > +        unsigned int *hour, unsigned int *min, unsigned int *sec,
> >> > +        unsigned int *wday, unsigned int *yday);
> > 
> > 
> > Should year/mon/.../yday be passed up as a structure?
> 
> Hello, Pavel
> 
> Thanks for your attention.
> 
> Actually, I considered to introduce a struct as your think, but finally I
> choose to use arguments list instead of a struct, because:
> 1: User can easy to call this function without define a struct
> 2: Get rid of adding a additional struct into kernel
> 
> In fact, I think both(use a struct or not) should be ok.

Using a struct will generate better code at caller sites and possibly
at the called site too.  The compiler doesn't need to marshal those
eight pointers on the stack (or wherever the architecture puts them),
possibly less registers will be consumed, etc.  And it'll use less
stack space.

So I do think it would be better from that point of view.

However it will probably require much more code change at the call
sites.  But those changes will be simple, and probably a good thing
regardless.


--
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/