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  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:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:50:14 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <>
To:     Clement Courbet <>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,,
Subject: Re: Re [PATCH v2] lib: optimize cpumask_next_and()

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Clement Courbet wrote:
> Thanks for the comments Yury.
> > But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with
> > _find_next_bit_le()
> Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a
> find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more
> like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge
> it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)

Both ways will work, but I think that extra is_le is too much.
_find_next_bit_le() should be the copy of _find_next_bit() with the
addition of swapping code.

If you don't need find_next_and_bit_le(), don't add it.
find_{first,last}_bit() doesn't have LE version, for example.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists