netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

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: <20180104124111.GE6671@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:41:11 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, davem@...emloft.net, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, linville@...driver.com,
        gospo@...adcom.com, steven.lin1@...adcom.com, yuvalm@...lanox.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

> Double word is 64 bit, dont understand why this is confusing.

In an ASCI, the definition of a word can be quite flexible. I've seen
designs using 14 bit words, since 14 bits was all that was needed to
represent the data to be held. I've also seen a 16 bit word used to
hold a signed value, with the binary point before the last nibble, so
it could hold -2047.9375 to +2047.9375. I might have that wrong. It
gave me a headache at the time, but the synthesizer had no such
problems.

Why not use u8, u16, u14, u32, u64, which we can all understand
without confusion.

	Andrew