On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:23:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Herbert Xu herb...@gondor.hengli.com.au
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:16:08 +1100
OK, so we grew by 1136 - 888 = 248. Keep in mind that 128 of
that is expected since we moved W onto the stack.
Right.
I guess we could
From: Alexey Dobriyan adobri...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:27:52 +0300
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:23:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Herbert Xu herb...@gondor.hengli.com.au
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:16:08 +1100
OK, so we grew by 1136 - 888 = 248. Keep in mind that 128 of
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
In fact, in my tree, this change brings the stack allocation instruction
down to:
save%sp, -824, %sp !
which is actually BETTER than what the old per-cpu code got:
save%sp, -984, %sp !
Therefore
Hi Linus:
Dave reported that even with the latest stack bloat reduction
fix for i386, the stack usage of sha512 still exceeded 1024 bytes
on sparc32. However, with Alexey's ror64 patch applied, the stack
usage goes back down to a more respectable 824.
So I've moved the ror64 patch from
