linux-kernel - Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

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: <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 03:15:05 +0100
From:   Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 10:48 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[...]
> > The others are useless churn or they make the result uselessly
> > different from the rest of KVM code.
> 
> I got an other view about potential benefits around the suggested
> movements for error code settings.

Which is not explained here.

> Would others like to help in approaches for checking corresponding
> run time changes a bit more?

You propose the patch and others should do the work to get it accepted?

Kind regards,
	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at