linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kenrel.h: add ALIGN_OF_LAST

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]

Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:08:59 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
cc:	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kenrel.h: add ALIGN_OF_LAST_BIT()

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

> >> +#define ALIGN_OF_LAST_BIT(x)   ((((x)^((x) - 1))>>1) + 1)
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't ALIGNMENT() be less confusing? After all, that's what this macro is
> > calculating, right? Alignment of given address.
>
> Bits do not have alignment because they aren't directly addressable.
> Can you hardcode this sequence with comment, because it looks too
> special for macro.

Some sane naming please. This is confusing.