linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] crc32: Optimize inner loop.

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: <049d01cc9f6d$c962f8a0$5c28e9e0$@systemfabricworks.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:58:35 -0600
From:	"Bob Pearson" <rpearson@...temfabricworks.com>
To:	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"'Joakim Tjernlund'" <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Frank Zago'" <fzago@...temfabricworks.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] crc32: Optimize inner loop.

> 
> I meant to ask about that.  The discussion was fairly long and complex
> and I'm now unsure whether the patch I have is a still up-to-date,
> whether it is a good one, whether it has additional testing results,
> etc.

The original patch that went into your mm tree was replaced by a cleaner one
over time but the review process went on and on and I had to spend more time
with my day job. Eventually I just couldn't figure out how to get everyone
any happier. I was really reluctant to give up performance on the Intel
platform
but we were mostly arguing about 2-3% give or take.

It seems that the folks that wanted the same algorithm for crc32c may have
figured out how to reach a compromise.

--
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/