linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Unify pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to

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:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:08:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Unify pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte helpers

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:43:33 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:33:36AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > B_it_F_ield_OP_eration, Peter I don't mind to use any other
> > > > name, this was just short enough to type.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think it would be useful to have a comment what it means and what
> > > v,r,m,l represent.
> 
> Sure, maybe simply better names as value, rshift, mask, lshift would
> look more understandable. I'll try to use width for mask as well
> (which reminds me BFEXT helpers Andrew mentioned in this thread).
> 
> > Can it be written in C with types and proper variable names and such
> > radical stuff?
> 
> Could you elaborate? You mean inline helper or macro with type checks?

/*
 * description goes here
 */
static inline pteval_t pte_bfop(pteval_t val, int rightshift, ...)
{
	...
}

So much better!  We really should only implement code in a macro if it
*has* to be done as a macro and I don't think that's the case here?

--
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/