netsniff-ng.git - A high-performance Linux networking toolkit

summary refs log tree commit diff

path: root/hash.h

Age	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Files	Lines
2013-06-04	misc: cleanup header comments	Daniel Borkmann	1	-7/+1
	Remove header comments where appropriate. And also clean up colorize a bit. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
2013-03-15	all: import netsniff-ng 0.5.8-rc0 source	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+86
	We decided to get rid of the old Git history and start a new one for several reasons: ) Allow / enforce only high-quality commits (which was not the case for many commits in the history), have a policy that is more close to the one from the Linux kernel. With high quality commits, we mean code that is logically split into commits and commit messages that are signed-off and have a proper subject and message body. We do not allow automatic Github merges anymore, since they are total bullshit. However, we will either cherry-pick your patches or pull them manually. ) The old archive was about ~27MB for no particular good reason. This basically derived from the bad decision that also some PDF files where stored there. From this moment onwards, no binary objects are allowed to be stored in this repository anymore. The old archive is not wiped away from the Internet. You will still be able to find it, e.g. on git.cryptoism.org etc. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>

calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>