linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F450599.6040103@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:11:21 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	ddaney.cavm@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups
 + docs

On 02/22/2012 06:56 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
>> maybe even a "very_likely()", but then keep a static_branch() 
>> or whatever for those cases you do not want to optimize at 
>> compile time.
> 
> Once such uses arise maybe we could add such an 'unbiased' 
> variant.
> 

We already have such use cases, although a lot of them are covered by
static_cpu_has().  However,  I fully expect that we'll have cases that
aren't readily covered by CPU feature flags and I'd like to avoid
reinventing new features.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/