netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API

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: <3E9E1888-026E-45C1-8AA7-DADA211EDBDF@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 22:35:13 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API



> On Sep 29, 2018, at 9:20 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 16:01 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
>>>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
>>>>>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +typedef enum {
>>>>>>>>> +       HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
>>>>>>>>> +       HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
>>>>>>>>> +       HAVE_SIMD_IN_USE = 1 << 31
>>>>>>>>> +} simd_context_t;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain
>>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on
>>>>>>> the rationale?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In case it matters, the motivation for making this a typedef is I
>>>>>> could imagine this at some point turning into a more complicated
>>>>>> struct on certain platforms and that would make refactoring easier. I
>>>>>> could just make it `struct simd_context` now with 1 member though...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes that makes sense
>>>> 
>>>> The rationale for it being a typedef or moving to a struct now?
>>> 
>>> Yes just switch to a struct.
>> 
>> Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first.
> 
> Why do you need to hear from me again?
> 
> As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5.
> 
> 

I personally prefer it with the typedef. If this were my code, I’d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this.