linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node

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: <20180326142527.GJ2149215@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:25:27 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     yuankuiz@...eaurora.org
Cc:     cgroups@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
        cgroups-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
>  1) return int type variable in bool function:
>  bool enabled()
>  {
>  	int ret = 1;
>  	return ret;
>  }
...
>  2)
>  bool enabled()
>  {
>  	bool ret = 1;
>  	return ret;
>  }
...
>  so the #1) style function can generate significant instructions
> than the #2).

That is a problem for the compiler, not the code.

>  While, this is happened only when "-On" is not used with *-gcc
> together. Though, it is oftern there, it is best to provide this
> with decoupling of which option is used for optimization.

We don't want to dictate minute coding styles to avoid things which
are trivially optimized by compilers.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun