netdev - RE: [net-next 9/9] ixgbe: Cleanup holes in flags after removing several of them

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: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B6F98@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:33:19 +0100
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	"Alexander Duyck" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <gospo@...hat.com>, <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 9/9] ixgbe: Cleanup holes in flags after removing several of them

> This change is just meant to defragment the flags as there are several
hole
> that have been introduced since several features, or the flags for
them,
> have been removed.

Doesn't this sort of change just make it difficult for people who are
looking at hexdumps of memory but don't have exactly the right header
file to hand?

It doesn't really gain anything much either.

I can (just) imagine reordering flags so that the commonly
tested ones are in the low bits so that they can be tested
with small immediate constants - saving an instruction.
But that isn't what is being done here.

	David

--
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