[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bb2f69bfcb1550396a3c593f12119b3@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:48:53 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Lyra2 on GPU
On 2015-07-06 18:53, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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);
>>>
>>> ...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?
If I understand you right, you are looking at hiding the problem instead
of fixing it?
magnum
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.
