From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: =?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn_Engel?= <joern@logfs.org>
Subject: Re: arm checkstack
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:13:14 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com>,
       Linux Arm Mailing List 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <49107304.2060006@parrot.com> <20081104173524.GB16036@logfs.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081104173524.GB16036@logfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200811051713.15352.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 962
Lines: 24

On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 4 November 2008 17:06:28 +0100, Matthieu CASTET wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder why the arm version of checkstack only catch stack size >= 300
> > and < 10000 [1].
> > Why doesn't it use ".*sub.*sp, sp, #([0-9]{1,8})" to catch all stack usage ?
> 
> Looks like a bug.  And it further looks like Holger just copied what
> everyone else did at the time.  And the one who started this strange
> pattern was: Arnd.
> 
> Arnd, did you have a good reason for choosing the pattern?
> 

don't really remember what I thought back then. Probably I tried to filter
out any function lower than 300 bytes as early as possible and did not think
of the >= 10000 case.

	Arnd <><
--
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/