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  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, 8 Nov 2009 11:18:56 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Andi Kleen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S by
 fast string.

* Andi Kleen <> wrote:

> writes:
> > Intel Nehalem improves the performance of REP strings significantly
> > over previous microarchitectures in several ways:
> The problem is that it's not necessarily a win on older CPUs to do it 
> this way.

I'm wondering, why are you writing such obtruse comments to Intel 
submitted patches? I know it and you know it too which older CPUs have a 
slow string implementation, and you know the rough order of magnitude 
and significance as well and you have ideas how to solve it all.

Instead you injected just the minimal amount of information into this 
thread to derail this patch you can see a problem with, but you didnt at 
all explain your full opinion openly and honestly and you certainly 
didnt give enough information to allow Ling Ma to act upon your opinion 
with maximum efficiency.

I.e. you are not being helpful at all here and you are obstructing Intel 
folks actively, making their workflow and progress as inefficient as you 
possibly can. Why are you doing that?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists