linux-kernel - Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:30:26 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc:     William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@...aro.org>,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, pcc@...gle.com,
        andreyknvl@...il.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        yury.norov@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, eugenis@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned()

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 02:07:45PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 1:28 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 07:19:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 11:04:16AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:05:34PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:

...

> > > > William, what do you think on this?
> > > >
> > > > I'm personally prefer William's version as not only it was published first
> > > > it was carefully designed and got a lot of review already. We just hadn't had
> > > > the user for it that time.
> > >
> > > Yes, that version went through several revisions so it's been well
> > > tested and known to work -- as you pointed out it just lacked the users
> > > to warrant merging it into the tree. If it statisfies the use-case
> > > required here now, then I think we should it pick it up rather than
> > > reinvent the solution again.
> > >
> > > Also, we probably don't need the "clump" code in there, so perhaps
> > > splitting it out to just the bitmap_{set,get}_value relevant code is
> > > fine.
> >
> > Agree, thank you for your comments!

> So would it be fine if I split off bitmap_set_value() and
> bitmap_get_value() from that series and send it (with the appropriate
> attribution) instead of my patch 1/5?
> We'll probably still need to retain patch 2/5 (with the function names
> changed).

Sounds good to me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko