Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"
In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"
Next in thread: David Wagner: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"
Reply: David Wagner: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

sarnoldat_private

On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 05:18:05PM +0000, David Wagner wrote:
> Do you have any proof of this?  I'm skeptical that the difference is
> noticeable under common usage, but without measurements, I don't know
> how to evaluate this claim either way.

Well, it would be the difference between:

return (!(credentials & REQUIRED_CREDENTIALS)); /* logical not, not
		bitwise not */
and
return (0);

While there is no hard and fast rule that one or the other will be
faster in all cases, in many cases the 'return (0)' will be faster. (And
perhaps the first case is overly complicated .. but no matter how well
it is optimized, in most cases it will likely take at least one CPU
cycle more than the second case.)

And, when the processor in question has only a few million cycles per
second, why not help the folks out?

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module