Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-21 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:35:29PM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > - return sprintf(buffer, "%s+%#lx/%#lx", name, offset, size); > > + if (namebuf) > > + kfree(namebuf); > > Note, the if condition is not needed,

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-21 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:35:29PM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > - return sprintf(buffer, "%s+%#lx/%#lx", name, offset, size); > + if (namebuf) > + kfree(namebuf); Note, the if condition is not needed, kfree handles null pointers fine. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-21 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:35:29PM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: - return sprintf(buffer, %s+%#lx/%#lx, name, offset, size); + if (namebuf) + kfree(namebuf); Note, the if condition is not needed, kfree handles null pointers fine. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-21 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:35:29PM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: - return sprintf(buffer, %s+%#lx/%#lx, name, offset, size); + if (namebuf) + kfree(namebuf); Note, the if condition is not needed, kfree handles

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 18:32 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > > On 9/15/07, Gilboa Davara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed > > out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is > >

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Satyam Sharma
Hi, On 9/15/07, Gilboa Davara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed > out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is > enabled. (Though not limited to it) Yeah, I have experienced this

[Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Gilboa Davara
Hello all, In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is enabled. (Though not limited to it) Code path is simple: do_IRQ detects a a near stack overflow condition and calls show_trace_log_lvl which, down

[Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Gilboa Davara
Hello all, In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is enabled. (Though not limited to it) Code path is simple: do_IRQ detects a a near stack overflow condition and calls show_trace_log_lvl which, down

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Satyam Sharma
Hi, On 9/15/07, Gilboa Davara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is enabled. (Though not limited to it) Yeah, I have experienced this phenomenon/problem

Re: [Minor patch] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage.

2007-09-15 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 18:32 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: Hi, On 9/15/07, Gilboa Davara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, In a small exchange in fedora-kernel-list [1] Eric Sandeen has pointed out a possible stack overflow... when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is enabled. (Though not