Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:27:59 -0700
From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: Marcus Alanen <marcus@infa.abo.fi>
Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69
Message-Id: <20030507142759.6f93e589.rddunlap@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <200305072127.h47LR1Z14629@infa.abo.fi>
References: <3EB95BD7.8060700@pobox.com>
	<20030507132024.GB18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
	<Pine.LNX.4.53.0305070933450.11740@chaos>
	<1052332566.752437@palladium.transmeta.com>
	<3EB95BD7.8060700@pobox.com>
	<20030507133856.02748f4e.rddunlap@osdl.org>
	<200305072127.h47LR1Z14629@infa.abo.fi>
Organization: OSDL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1216
Lines: 25

On Thu, 8 May 2003 00:27:01 +0300 Marcus Alanen <marcus@infa.abo.fi> wrote:

| On Wed, 7 May 2003 13:38:56 -0700, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:
| >I have mostly used kmalloc/kfree, but using automatic variables is certainly
| >cleaner to write (code).  One of the patches that I did just made each ioctl
| >cmd call a separate function, and then each separate function was able to use
| >automatic variables on the stack instead of kmalloc/kfree.  I prefer this
| >method when it's feasible (and until gcc can handle these cases).
| 
| I take it moving the automatic variables in the function to a static
| data area would be possible, _if_ that function (or rather, the
| variables) is protected by some unique lock (not some per-structure
| lock, of course)? Although this is probably already done in the
| majority of cases.

Sure, it just means that use of those areas has to be serialized,
whereas the other ways allow reentrant/concurrent uses.

--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/