On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems this should just be a 'while' loop?
>
> while (bytes) {
> unsigned int todo = min_t(unsigned int, PAGE_SIZE, bytes);
>
> kernel_neon_begin();
> chacha_doneon(state, dst, src, todo, nrounds);
> kernel_neon_end();
>
> bytes -= todo;
> src += todo;
> dst += todo;
> }
The for(;;) is how it's done elsewhere in the kernel (that this patch
doesn't touch), because then we can break out of the loop before
having to increment src and dst unnecessarily. Likely a pointless
optimization as probably the compiler can figure out how to avoid
that. But maybe it can't. If you have a strong preference, I can
reactor everything to use `while (bytes)`, but if you don't care,
let's keep this as-is. Opinion?
Jason
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:32, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Seems this should just be a 'while' loop?
> >
> > while (bytes) {
> > unsigned int todo = min_t(unsigned int, PAGE_SIZE, bytes);
> >
> > kernel_neon_begin();
> > chacha_doneon(state, dst, src, todo, nrounds);
> > kernel_neon_end();
> >
> > bytes -= todo;
> > src += todo;
> > dst += todo;
> > }
>
> The for(;;) is how it's done elsewhere in the kernel (that this patch
> doesn't touch), because then we can break out of the loop before
> having to increment src and dst unnecessarily. Likely a pointless
> optimization as probably the compiler can figure out how to avoid
> that. But maybe it can't. If you have a strong preference, I can
> reactor everything to use `while (bytes)`, but if you don't care,
> let's keep this as-is. Opinion?
>
Since we're bikeshedding, I'd prefer 'do { } while (bytes);' here,
given that bytes is guaranteed to be non-zero before we enter the
loop. But in any case, I'd prefer avoiding for(;;) or while(1) where
we can.