On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:32, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.