linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] use ether_addr_equal

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: <20140117212410.GA13930@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:24:10 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	ath5k-devel@...ts.ath5k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	users@...x00.serialmonkey.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] use ether_addr_equal_64bits

On Mon 2013-12-30 19:14:56, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Ether_addr_equal_64bits is more efficient than ether_addr_equal, and can be
> used when each argument is an array within a structure that contains at
> least two bytes of data beyond the array.

I mean, yes, it is probably faster, and yes, most structures probably
contain two more bytes, but... is the uglyness worth the speedup? I'd
say this should not be done except in very time-critical places...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/