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 20:41:46 +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 06:50:14PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> 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.

Few comments more.

_find_next_bit is now referenced also by find_next_and_bit(), and
so it should be added to guard code:

#if !defined(find_next_bit) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit)
        || !defined(find_next_and_bit)
static unsigned long _find_next_bit( ... )

It may be essential at least for arm.

Don't forget to synchronize your changes with


Powered by blists - more mailing lists