[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201029120442.GP2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:04:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Walter Harms <wharms@....de>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com"
<clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech" <linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/unwind: remove unneeded initialization
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:49:50AM +0000, Walter Harms wrote:
> this looks like a reimplementation of bsearch()
> perhaps the maintainer can add a comment why the
> kernel implementation is not suitable here ?
If you look carefully it doesn't do an exact match, which is what
bsearch() does.
bsearch() also isn't stable in the precense of duplicates.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists