[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYCAlssPggCjd3NJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 19:25:42 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Tanzir Hasan <tanzirh@...gle.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick DeSaulniers <nnn@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sh: Added kernel.h to word-at-a-time
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:05:56AM -0800, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
> > While REPEAT_BYTE has a manageable number of users, upper_* and
> > lower_* have significantly more; I worry about moving those causing
> > regressions. We can move them, but such changes would need
> > significantly more soak time than this series IMO. Tanzir is also
> > working on statistical analysis; I suspect if he analyzes
> > include/linux/kernel.h, he can comment on whether the usage of
> > REPEAT_BYTE is correlated with the usage of upper_* and lower_* in
> > order to inform whether they should be grouped together or not.
>
> Removing REPEAT_BYTE is manageable and I have already moved it.
Removing? You mean switching to something else in all those headers?
> I will
> be pushing a patch that moves just that into another file called wordpart.h.
> There are too many instances of the other functions for it to make sense to
> remove them all in this patch.
Okay, let's see the proposal (patch) code then!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists