linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:37:29 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
        Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> > > +       unsigned short piix4_smba = adapdata->smba;
>> > >         u8 smba_en_lo;
>> > >         u8 port;
>> > >         int retval;
>> > > +       int timeout = 0;
>> > > +       int smbslvcnt;
>> >
>> > Keep them just after your another added variable.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think this makes sense as a general rule. I'd rather have
>> the variables in an order which makes sense (for human readers or for
>> stack size optimization - unless gcc does it for us?), rather than
>> always adding at the same place. Is there a rationale for doing that? I
>> don't think shrinking the patch size is good enough a reason.
>
> Not really. Some say "Reorder to save bytes", some say "reorder to
> utilize cache lines most". Unless I get some numbers showing the desired
> effect,

> I go for "most readable" approach which is subjective, of
> course. I'd be totally fine with the above.

My motivation was pure readability.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko