linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fat: Refactor shortname parsing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:09:21 -0500
From:	"Steven J. Magnani" <steve@...idescorp.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
Cc:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Refactor shortname parsing

On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 17:58 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: 
> On Friday 2012-08-03 17:06, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> >>>+static inline unsigned char fat_tolower(unsigned char c)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	return ((c >= 'A') && (c <= 'Z')) ? c+32 : c;
> >>>+}
> >>>+
> >>
> >> The kernel already has a tolower() function, can that not be used?
> >
> >tolower() is not exactly same, right? e.g. tolower(0xc0). Otherwise,
> >tolower() is fine.
> 
> Yes, but you can still
> 
> 	return (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z') ? tolower(c) : c;

But now it's less efficient because tolower() does an unnecessary lookup
to see if it's supposed to change the value. _tolower() wouldn't have
that issue, but it's marked "Do not use in your code". 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Magnani               "I claim this network for MARS!
www.digidescorp.com              Earthling, return my space modulator!"

#include <standard.disclaimer>


--
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/