linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v10 0/4] Replace fallback for IO memcpy and IO memset

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: <0577266edb9440acb082c9e02c0a73b9@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:16:51 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Julian Vetter' <jvetter@...rayinc.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	"Guo Ren" <guoren@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, WANG
 Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Geert
 Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Richard Henderson
	<richard.henderson@...aro.org>, Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Christoph Hellwig
	<hch@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-csky@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>, "loongarch@...ts.linux.dev"
	<loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...rayinc.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 0/4] Replace fallback for IO memcpy and IO memset

From: Julian Vetter
> Sent: 21 October 2024 14:32
> 
> Thank you again for your remarks Arnd and Christoph! I have updated the
> patchset, and placed the functions directly in asm-generic/io.h. I have
> dropped the libs/iomem_copy.c and have updated/clarified the commit
> message in the first patch.

Apart from build 'issues' what is the justification for inlining
these functions?

They are quite large for inlining and some drivers could easily
call them many times.

The I/O cycles themselves are likely to be slow enough that
the cost of a function call is pretty much likely to be noise.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)