linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] riscv: Support compiling the kernel with more extensions

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: <20240510-pesky-tackling-1b715c4bce35@spud>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 09:35:49 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
	Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
	Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>,
	Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] riscv: Support compiling the kernel with more
 extensions

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > > see why this particular optimisation was worth maintaining 3 code paths
> > 
> > I interpreted the "3 code paths" as with Zbb + 64 bit, with Zbb + 32
> > bit, and without Zbb. I directly responded to that by saying that we
> > could eliminate all of the code paths that are not Zbb + 64 bit could be
> > eliminated.

Argh, forgot to say that that was what I meant by the 3 paths, but I
didn't take
| We could just say we don't care about performance if you are running
| 32-bit linux or don't have Zbb, but we would be making that decision
| because we don't feel like maintaining the code. The code was written,
| tested, reviewed, and it provided large performance gains. I fail to
| understand why this is a burden to maintain.
as seriously suggesting that we should remove anything, it read like a
defence of the current code!

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)