linux-kernel - Re: Hexagon-setup: Combine four seq_printf() calls into one call in show

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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:28:00 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hexagon-setup: Combine four seq_printf() calls into one call in
 show_cpuinfo()

Am 21.10.2016 um 19:53 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 07:33:30PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>
>>> but (a) this isn't performance critical,
>>
>> This can be.
> 
> In this case, no, it really can't possibly be performance critical.
> If you can't see why, you have no business trying to send patches.
> 
>>> and (b) the number of bytes saved is really tiny.
>>
>> I imagine that the corresponding code and data size reduction could
>> be occasionally useful, couldn't it?
> 
> Note that in some cases, attempts to shirnk the code by tiny amounts
> can actually, paradoxically, cause the code to actually *expand*.  In
> any case, shrinking the kernel by 0.00015% really won't matter, since
> for no other reason, we round memory used to 4k pages.
> 
> So keeping the code easily readible is aslo a consideration that needs
> to be taken into acconut.
> 
>>> But at least if the compiler was doing the work, it would at least deal with
>>> it everywhere.
>>
>> I would find such an optimisation possibility also nice.
>>
>> Can it become acceptable to achieve a similar effect by the application
>> of scripts for the semantic patch language in the meantime?
> 
> The problem with scripts like this is that they very clearly don't
> have any human judgement.  And when the person using the scripts also
> doesn't seem to have good judgement, it's a real problem.
> 
> When the author of the semantic patch language is telling you to stand down,

A collaboration evolved between Julia and me during the years
where different software development opinions can be usual.
There are eventually further opinions from Linux contributors like you.


> and you still want to try to argue for blind application of patches,


> we have a really big problem. 
> Especially when some of your patches have actually introduced bugs.
> 
> 					- Ted
>