linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] lib/uuid.c: Silence an unchecked return value warning

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1465319638.25087.29.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2016 10:13:58 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	bjorn@...k.no, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, rv@...musvillemoes.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] lib/uuid.c: Silence an unchecked return value
 warning

On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 12:43 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > To be sure it faster we need the measurements. Sometimes it's not
> > obvious.
[]
> Speaking pedantically, you're right.  But as a practical matter, it's
> very unlikely, and what makes it truly insignificant is that it's not
> really a problem even if I'm wrong and the code *is* slower.
> 
> As you said, size is more important than speed, and I did, at your
> request, benchmark that.  I'm just trying to make the sort of changes
> that improve *both*.
> 
> If you have a realistic concern that the patches degrade speed, I can
> put in a few hours of work to put the different versions into a test
> harness and measure it accurately.
> 
> But if this is just a pro forma observation that estimates aren't
> perfectly reliable, it's not worth the effort.

Readability and correctness are probably more important than
runtime performance here.