netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] bitfield: fix *_encode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180618133330.707f3efd@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:33:30 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] bitfield: fix *_encode_bits()

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 22:28:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > For me looks like for consistency we may add fake conversion macros
> > for this, such as
> > 
> > #define cpu_to_le8(x) x
> > #define le8_to_cpu(x) x
> > ...
> > #undef le8_to_cpu
> > #undef cpu_to_le8
> > 
> > And do in the same way like below
> > 
> > __MAKE_OP(8)  
> 
> I disagree with this. I don't see why we should have le8_encode_bits()
> and be8_encode_bits() and friends, that makes no sense.

+1