Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:12:48 -0700
From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: Ingo Oeser <ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69
Message-Id: <20030508101248.13be1f4c.rddunlap@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030508171042.V626@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de>
References: <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>
	<20030508171042.V626@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de>
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: 1209
Lines: 27

On Thu, 8 May 2003 17:10:42 +0200 Ingo Oeser <ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:

| On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
| > I've written a few of the stack reduction patches.  Lots of ioctl functions
| > need work, so gcc handling it better would be good to have.
| > 
| > 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).
| 
| Wouldn't be a explicit union a better solution for the
| switch-statement-issue? 
| 
| That way you still can use stack, are using even less of it and
| have still all cases in place.

Sure, that's a good solution too.  Better one is the gcc solution.

--
~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/