| To: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE and CONFIG_FRAME_WARN |
| From: | Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:23:25 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EnjWM7XUEkO9VU3J88853Tedx7TALi04AqNuXldGo+0=; b=EaRgf1F25x5emyj7bZV8dKxaavJ9InxBOuSi5Q0S0tVrq4t8Qo1KOZBl7o+jD2c0H2 2aGd8eX+w73YXdp5ezCu7XsgOYpZRlmOJAMvAuc57+DtE6C5QIDjXGFvd4VMcOA2zAmA ZHPbEtt+8iPDhzigiZDy1fqI0pFcOgpWI8wk8= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=mxAQerFLrsfP/QsvOFgoC+j5lK+TwibUVN5SxymCV2yViPqOLceh0GH6gWuz40Hvnt Ibv68PTjv/HCb8gjqCbXDrF+wqBvkzj79G1+5yZ5rZoMrRp9r7LBsMosecXY5A1JCjhH alxY4ZeoZT1W+me4mNkgKYM+XdumlQXHPhYss= |
| In-reply-to: | <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911061710160.9725@eddie.linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20091107.010839.246840249.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <90edad820911060822g40233a8ft28001d68186b989e@mail.gmail.com> <90edad820911060834t5c14aa30t847c3b75bf7e36e@mail.gmail.com> <4AF4526B.3020502@caviumnetworks.com> <90edad820911060907j4a605167xfe1ebdf0dcf7b635@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911061710160.9725@eddie.linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@linux-mips.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote: > >> > It depends on your concerns. You are still using 4096 bytes of stack, but >> > you are trying to trick the compiler into not warning. >> > >> > If you think the warning is bogus, you should remove it for all code, not >> > just this file. If you think the warning is valid, then you should fix the >> > code so that it doesn't use as much stack space. >> >> Frankly, I don't think that the warning is bogus, especially if we're >> talking about the case of the 4K page and 32-bit kernel, and I started >> thinking htat probably the static array solution would be the safest >> bet here. > > KSEG space is not paged, so who cares about the page size? You're not > making additional stack page allocations, although you can overflow the > space available at some point (but that's avoided if you know a priori > your backtrace is not going to be deep). Static allocation has its > drawbacks, for example it takes storage space (if it's initialised data) > or memory space (if it's BSS) indefinitely. Thanks for the explanation. Then a variable-size array, I guess. Dmitri > > Maciej > |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE and CONFIG_FRAME_WARN, Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE and CONFIG_FRAME_WARN, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE and CONFIG_FRAME_WARN, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE and CONFIG_FRAME_WARN, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |