linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] min_heap: Min heap optimizations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fWn2xeqKZ2LhSoZ6Pm5QR2VMLrR=9tPd-6CdEBCd92siA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:51 -0800
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] min_heap: Min heap optimizations

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:08 PM Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:32 AM Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The purpose of this patch series is to enhance the existing min heap
> > > implementation. The optimization focuses on both the heap construction
> > > process and the number of comparisons made during the heapify
> > > operation.
> > >
> > > Kuan-Wei Chiu (2):
> > >   min_heap: Optimize number of calls to min_heapify()
> > >   min_heap: Optimize number of comparisons in min_heapify()
> >
> > Thanks Kuan-Wei,
> >
> > The patch series looks good to me. Given the extra conditions should
> > there be some updates to:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/lib/test_min_heap.c
> > to ensure coverage?
> >
> Hi Ian,
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> The current min_heap test is sufficient to cover all the code changes
> introduced by this patch series, even when only tested with a known
> set of values copied from the data.
>
> Additionally, I'm unsure if the commit message title prefix I used is
> correct. Perhaps I should use "lib:" instead of "min_heap:"?

Yes, "lib:" would be most consistent or "lib min_heap:". Could you
update this in a v2?

Thanks,
Ian