linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] SATA: Fine-tuning for two 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: <20170428215334.GH22354@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:53:34 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:00:37PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:54:32 +0200
> 
> A few update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.

Hmmm, allocs -> callocs.  Are these actually beneficial?  If so, why?
Because one multiplication is rolled into the call?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun