Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:02:33 +0200
From: Agnieszka Bielec <>
Subject: Re: PHC: Lyra2 on GPU

2015-07-06 20:48 GMT+02:00 magnum <>:
> On 2015-07-06 18:53, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
>> 2015-07-06 10:25 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <>:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 01:15:54AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>  (...)
>>>> 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);
>>>> 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?
> If I understand you right, you are looking at hiding the problem instead of
> fixing it?

the problem is only that something is printf'ed 2 times and user can
be confused (as I think) or there is something more?
opencl_init can be moved to init (if build_opts aren't changing), and
maybe i can not-autotune for tests but I was just thinking about
something else

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.