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  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:   Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:08:29 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/10] Introduce the for_each_set_clump8 macro

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 6:12 AM William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 09:12:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:29:32PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > > Changes in v10:
> > >   - Fix off-by-one error in bitmap initialization in the
> > >     test_for_each_set_clump8 function
> > >   - Fix typos in clump_exp array definition in test_bitmap.c ("0x28"
> > >     should have been "0x38")
> > >   - Utilize for_each_set_clump8 macro in intel_soc_dts_iosf.c
> >
> > One more, can you look at gen_74x164_set_multiple() ? It seems a candidate as
> > well, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> We can utilize the for_each_set_clump8 macro in the
> gen_74x164_set_multiple function, but I skipped over it earlier since I
> noticed it used the BITS_PER_BYTE define rather than a hardcoded 8. If
> it always loops 8 bits at a time, then we can use the
> for_each_set_clump8 macro;

Yes, see below.

> otherwise we would need the more generic
> for_each_set_clump macro to handle the non-8-bit looping cases.

> Will BITS_PER_BYTE always be defined as 8 bits?

It's not correct question, the right one "is the hardware always in
8-bit chunks". And datasheet is crystal clear about this.
This very old and famous IC has 8-bit from the 70-s (IIRC the epoch of
the design).
So, it is always in 8-bit chunks.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists