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: <e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:09:19 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: topology: Map PPTT node offset to logic
 physical package id



On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

>>
>> OK sure. I liked the approach in Shunyong's patch. I was thinking if we
>> can avoid the list and dynamic allocation on each addition and make it
>> more simpler.
>>
> 
> This one reads simpler, but yes I agree we should try to avoid the
> dynamic allocation.
> 
> OTOH, I think that dropping the dynamic allocation leads to an algorithm
> that picks a value and replaces all the matches. Which of course is
> Andrew's patch, although I did have to read it a couple times to get a
> grasp how it works. I'm guessing that is due to the fact that he seems
> to have optimized 3 double loops into a single loop with two individual
> nested loops. AKA its probably more efficient than the naive
> implementation, but readability seems to have suffered a bit in the
> initial version he posted. I'm not sure the optimization is worth it,
> but I'm guessing there is a middle ground which makes it more readable.
> 

Completely agree. RFC from Andrew is not so readable and easy to understand.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ