[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2190933.vdB90a64Et@tauon.atsec.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:52:49 +0200
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Jim Davis <jim.epost@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: randconfig build error with next-20150529, in crypto/jitterentropy.c
Am Monday 08 June 2015, 14:36:30 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
Hi Peter,
>
>Would something like
>
>#pragma GCC push_options
>#pragma GCC optimize ("-O0")
>static __u64 jent_fold_time(struct rand_data *ec, __u64 time,
> __u64 *folded, __u64 loop_cnt)
>{
> ...
>}
>#pragma GCC pop_options
>
>Be an option to allow the file to be compiled with regular optimizations
>enabled?
After doing some tests, I see that neither the min entropy nor the Shannon
Entropy of the raw noise is affected by using the mentioned pragmas at the
right locations.
So I will prepare a patch tonight.
Just for my edification: why does an -O0 on a self contained file break the
compile run? Any why do the pragmas work?
Thanks
Stephan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists