linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf lock: Implement basic sorting function of perf lock

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: <4B46E69D.9050800@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:02:37 +0900
From:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: Implement basic sorting function of perf lock

On 2009年12月28日 19:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:56 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>> +/* based on kernel/lockdep.c */
>> +#define MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS  13
>> +#define LOCKHASH_BITS          (MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS - 1)
>> +#define LOCKHASH_SIZE          (1UL<<  LOCKHASH_BITS)
>
> Since you're hashing something fundamentally different than lockdep does
> I don't think it makes sense to carry either the name or the size along.
>
>

Do you mean that MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS is needless?
# Sorry, I'm not good at English...

--
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/