linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/31] bitops: add parity functions

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:	Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:56:15 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	"zhaoxiu.zeng" <zhaoxiu.zeng@...il.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] bitops: add parity functions

> > Any particular reason that you select one approach over the other
> > in the different cases?
> 
> No particular reason, just like the architecture's __arch_hweightN.

The general recommendatiosn these days are to use static inline
for code to get better type check.
And it would also be nice to be consistent across architectures.

	Sam