linux-kernel - Re: + fls-change-parameter-to-unsigned-int.patch added to -mm tree

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 07:44:37 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + fls-change-parameter-to-unsigned-int.patch added to -mm tree

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:14:44PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 03:33:01PM -0800, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> 
> > -static inline int fls(int x)
> > +static inline int fls(unsigned int x)
> >  {
> > -	return fls64((unsigned int) x);
> > +	return fls64(x);
> >  }
> 
> Should it return "unsigned"? Logically it should.
> I remember doing this and there was some code size increase :-(

Yes, it returns a number in the range [0-32], so it can absolutely
be unsigned.  I'm kind of surprised it made any difference.

When you say "doing this", what did you try?  unsigned fls(unsigned),
int fls(unsigned) or unsigned fls(int) ?