linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

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: <20091230104325.GA2214@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:43:25 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:29:50AM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:18:50PM -0500, Vikram Dhillon wrote:
> > > IMHO you can process elements rather than bytes, which is a good
> > > improvement, but then again its my opinion, if others don't like it
> > > then we can always change it :D
> > 
> > Right, I was not arguing against having a record-oriented interface, I
> > was questioning the utility of processing several records at a time.
> > Kfifo users that I have seen so far were working in a record-at-a-time
> > mode.
> > 
> 
> Fascinating, i get a lot of comments, but no one is trying the new macro
> base implementation. If someone would, this person would see, that is
> 100% compatible to the current one and absolut easy to use. Please try
> it first bevor argue and complain.
> 

I do not need to try the new behavior - you explained it quite well.
You changed the old API to allow processing multiple records at a time
and it does not quite work the way you want with Andi's patch. Now the
question is: when working with _records_ does anyone really want to
put/get more than 1 record at a time? My answer would be "no, most users
work with 1 record at a time". Thus your changes to the old API are not
needed.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/