From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40291)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rkrcmar@redhat.com>) id 1ZpJpo-0008Qt-Un
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:39:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rkrcmar@redhat.com>) id 1ZpJpl-0006Af-LP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:39:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39635)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rkrcmar@redhat.com>) id 1ZpJpl-0006AR-Fb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:39:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:39:20 +0200
From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20151022173919.GC14789@potion.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1445522453-14450-1-git-send-email-P@draigBrady.com>
	<5628F4BC.2040502@redhat.com> <5628F634.6040809@redhat.com>
	<5628FE20.80802@draigBrady.com> <56290152.7010408@redhat.com>
	<562908A6.3000307@redhat.com> <56290B55.2000703@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56290B55.2000703@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] copy,
 dd: simplify and optimize NUL bytes detection
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@draigbrady.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, coreutils@gnu.org, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

2015-10-22 18:14+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 22/10/2015 18:02, Eric Blake wrote:
>> I see a bug in there:
> 
> Of course.  You shouldn't have told me what the bug was, I deserved
> to look for it myself. :)

It rather seems that you don't want spoilers, :)

I see two bugs now.

> bool memeqzero4_paolo(const void *data, size_t length)
> {
>     const unsigned char *p = data;
>     unsigned long word;
> 
>     while (__builtin_expect(length & (sizeof(word) - 1), 0)) {
>         if (*p)
>             return false;
>         p++;
>         length--;
>         if (!length)
>             return true;
>     }
> 
>     /* We must always read one byte or word, even if everything is aligned!
>      * Otherwise, memcmp(data, data, length) is trivially true.
>      */
>     for (;;) {
>         memcpy(&word, p, sizeof(word));
>         if (word)
>             return false;
>         if (__builtin_expect(length & (16 - sizeof(word)), 0) == 0)
>             break;
>         p += sizeof(word);
>         length -= sizeof(word);
>         if (!length)
>             return true;
>     }
> 
>      /* Now we know that's zero, memcmp with self. */
>      return memcmp(data, p, length) == 0;
> }