From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28C02125C8; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10928"; a="8908159" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,286,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="8908159" Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Dec 2023 09:25:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10928"; a="725405139" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,286,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="725405139" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Dec 2023 09:25:46 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rFHN9-0000000727j-0xQq; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 19:25:43 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 19:25:42 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Tanzir Hasan Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Kees Cook , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick DeSaulniers , Andrew Morton , llvm@lists.linux.dev, Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sh: Added kernel.h to word-at-a-time Message-ID: References: <20231214-libstringheader-v2-0-0f195dcff204@google.com> <20231214-libstringheader-v2-1-0f195dcff204@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:05:56AM -0800, Tanzir Hasan wrote: > > While REPEAT_BYTE has a manageable number of users, upper_* and > > lower_* have significantly more; I worry about moving those causing > > regressions. We can move them, but such changes would need > > significantly more soak time than this series IMO. Tanzir is also > > working on statistical analysis; I suspect if he analyzes > > include/linux/kernel.h, he can comment on whether the usage of > > REPEAT_BYTE is correlated with the usage of upper_* and lower_* in > > order to inform whether they should be grouped together or not. > > Removing REPEAT_BYTE is manageable and I have already moved it. Removing? You mean switching to something else in all those headers? > I will > be pushing a patch that moves just that into another file called wordpart.h. > There are too many instances of the other functions for it to make sense to > remove them all in this patch. Okay, let's see the proposal (patch) code then! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko