On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Okay, will do-while it up for v2.
