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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707241246130.3607@woody.linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:48:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot() On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > But do we > > care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()? > >... > > Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined? In this case, it was a pain to just even try to find the call chain, or read the asm. I would encourage lots of kernel hackers to read the assembler code gcc generates. I suspect people being aware of code generation issues (and writing their code with that in mind) is a *much* bigger performance impact than gcc inlining random functions. So maybe I'm old-fashioned and crazy, but "readability of the asm result" actually is a worthwhile goal. Not because we care directly, but because I'd like to encourage people to do it, due to the *indirect* benefits. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists