[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:53:06 +0200
From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Lyra2 on GPU
2015-07-06 10:25 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 01:15:54AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> Thinking loud. Current behavior, for a test run we have:
>> reset(NULL)
>> self-tests
>> benchmarks
>>
>> And for a crack run we have:
>> reset(NULL)
>> self-tests
>> reset(db)
>> crack mode
>>
>> We could change it to always pass "db" to reset(). It could still *be*
>> NULL but we'd never call it with an explicit NULL.
>>
>> A test run would be effectively the same. A crack run would become:
>> reset(db)
>> self-tests
>> reset(db)
>> crack mode
>>
>> This would solve this issue but a side-effect is reset() can no longer
>> tell whether we're about to self-test before a crack or actually run
>> one. For resolving that we could simply change
>>
>> void fmt_reset(struct db_main *db);
>>
>> ...to
>>
>> void fmt_reset(struct db_main *db, int self_test);
>>
>> ...and a crack run would change to:
>> reset(db, 1)
>> self-tests
>> reset(db, 0)
>> crack mode
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Yes, this makes sense to me. Would we actually need to add this "int
> self_test"? The few formats that care would be able to count the
> reset() calls on their own, perhaps with the counter reset on init().
first printf() is in opencl_init, second in autotune_run()
maybe just modify these functions to only printf once and call these
functions as now it looks like in the code?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
