linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] IA64-IRQ: Use kmalloc_array() in sn_irq_lh

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608281121520.3321@hadrien>
Date:   Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:28:07 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] IA64-IRQ: Use kmalloc_array() in sn_irq_lh_init()



On Sat, 27 Aug 2016, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 09:02 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > If you _really wanted to clear up this code and make it more
> > > robust/better, it'd probably be nicer to convert the
> > > struct list_head **sn_irq_lh to a single struct list_head *
> > > That would be less data space overall given the alignment
> > > waste of the individual allocs.
> > Does this suggestion mean that I should drop my proposal
> > around the software components "IRQ" and "TLB" for the system
> > architecture "IA64" in such a questionable patch series?
>
> While elimination of code duplication should be good,
> what it means it you should avoid making changes that
> are merely mechanical and strive to make changes that
> improve code execution speed or reduce overall object
> size while not impacting overall execution speed.

I do think that there is some value in doing similar things in a uniform
way, using meaningful names, even if in a particular case it doesn't help
performance or reduce code size.  Even duplicating code could be OK if it
is not in a critical path and it makes the code overall easier to
understand.  But if the maintainer prefers the code not to be duplicated,
then of course it should not be duplicated.

julia