linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] lib: inline _find_next

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:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 23:13:58 -0800
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
        "Ma, Jianpeng" <jianpeng.ma@...el.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] lib: inline _find_next_bit() wrappers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:47 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:17:17AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > lib/find_bit.c declares five single-line wrappers for _find_next_bit().
> > We may turn those wrappers to inline functions. It eliminates unneeded
> > function calls and opens room for compile-time optimizations.
>
> >  tools/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 27 +++++++++---
> >  tools/lib/find_bit.c                    | 52 ++++++++++-------------
>
> In a separated patch, please. I don't think we need to defer this series in
> case if tools lagged (which is usual case in my practice).

Splitting it to kernel and tools parts means either a patch bomb for tools or
doubling the size of the series. Both options look worse than what we have now.

Can you explain more on the lagged tools argument?

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>