linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] can: length: add definitions for frame lengths in bits

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]

Message-ID: <CAMZ6Rq+DW7Vdrjb+T2FVkh4iCFAGWQSUTpCAuFCsH_TJ-NYjTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 17:06:43 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Thomas.Kopp@...rochip.com
Cc:     mkl@...gutronix.de, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, marex@...x.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: length: add definitions for frame lengths in bits

Hi Thomas,

On Mon. 9 May 2023 at 16:12, <Thomas.Kopp@...rochip.com> wrote:

[...]

> Right, do you plan on separating this for Arbitration bitrate and databitrate? It would probably make sense to use a fixed number of worst case stuffbits for the arbitration phase and the formula for the data phase.

I have a few ideas how to implement it, but seeing how complex things
are going, I am thinking of creating an inline helper function for the
bitstuffing calculation (the compiler should be able to fold it into a
constant expression, so there should be no penalty).

For the exact details, I have not decided yet. I need to experiment.
This not being so trivial and not having so much free time now, please
wait a few days for the v2 ;)