From: Frank Seidel Subject: Re: [PATCH][trivial] crypto: tcrypt - reduce stack size Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: <49A55BA8.2060205@suse.de> References: <49A54C23.8090209@suse.de> <20090225142000.GA4136@gondor.apana.org.au> <49A55499.6090700@suse.de> <20090225142744.GA4331@gondor.apana.org.au> <49A55771.1050408@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Frank Seidel , Herbert Xu , linux kernel , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , nhorman@tuxdriver.com, lho@amcc.com, kaber@trash.net, darrenrjenkins@gmail.com, Greg KH , Frank Seidel To: Geert Uytterhoeven Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35651 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752442AbZBYOyf (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:54:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Frank Seidel wrote: > Wel... > > Using kmalloc() increases code size, makes the code more complex, and increases > the risk of introducing a memory leak now or later. Ok, admitted. >> I just stumbled over tcrypt on the make checkstack output and as also >> the kerneljanitors todo advises to reduce this footprint where possible >> i just wanted to help out here. > > Reducing stack usage is fine. However, for a loadable test module without > concurrency issues it's far easier to do that by just making the data static. Is PATCHv3 then ok for you? Thanks, Frank