linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: null: Optimise disjunctions in SmPL script “eno.cocci”

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:56:54 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc:     Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: null: Optimise disjunctions in SmPL script “eno.cocci”



On Sun, 25 Oct 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> This analysis result indicates a clear ranking for such function calls.
> >> Thus reorder the SmPL disjunction items according to their usage incidence.
> >
> > Did you actually test this before and after the change and see a
> > difference in performance?
>
> Would you become interested to configure a representative test environment
> for safe comparisons of corresponding run time characteristics
> of the affected software?

In what sense could the comparison possibly be unsafe?

Just use time and run spatch on whatever machine you want.  It's not that
complicated.

> > On my laptop, I see absolutely no difference,
> > for the patch mode and for the context mode.
>
> Does such information trigger a desire to clarify involved aspects in more detail?

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6200U CPU @ 2.30GHz

julia