From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH][trivial] crypto: tcrypt - reduce stack size Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:40:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20090225194013.GB6193@suse.de> References: <49A54C23.8090209@suse.de> <20090225142000.GA4136@gondor.apana.org.au> <49A55499.6090700@suse.de> <82ecf08e0902250629n6a190165u557c21b0ebe797d5@mail.gmail.com> <49A556E3.1000309@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thiago Galesi , Herbert Xu , linux kernel , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Frank Seidel , akpm@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , nhorman@tuxdriver.com, lho@amcc.com, kaber@trash.net, darrenrjenkins@gmail.com To: Frank Seidel Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45575 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757023AbZBYTr0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:47:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49A556E3.1000309@suse.de> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:34:11PM +0100, Frank Seidel wrote: > Thiago Galesi wrote: > > If you write static char output[1024]; (even inside a function) it's > > not allocated on the stack. > > Oh, yes i misunderstood Herbert, sorry. But anyway isn't > it preferred to kmalloc such arrays? > Greg, i thought it was you who told me so, is that right? Generally, yes, it is preferred. But if it can be static, that's fine too. thanks, greg k-h