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: <ea271bc26e293c232c6ea7772607c7fc@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:37:31 +0800
From:   yuankuiz@...eaurora.org
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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

Hi Tejun,

     inline.

On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
[ZJ] Optimized by compiler is observed only. Such as it is not so big 
difference in x86-arch.

> 
> Thanks.