Re: [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c

2005-03-30 Thread Jesper Juhl
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Yum Rayan wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:43:12 -0800, Randy.Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yum Rayan wrote: > > > > > > > - do not write past array index for the boundary case > > > > > > I don't see a boundary case problem with the cur

Re: [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c

2005-03-30 Thread Randy.Dunlap
Yum Rayan wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:43:12 -0800, Randy.Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yum Rayan wrote: Attempt to reduce stack usage in module.c (linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3). Specifically from checkstack.pl Also while at it, fix following in who_is_doing_it(...) - use only as much memory is neede

Re: [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c

2005-03-29 Thread Yum Rayan
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:43:12 -0800, Randy.Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yum Rayan wrote: > > Attempt to reduce stack usage in module.c (linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3). > > Specifically from checkstack.pl > > > > Before patch > > -- > > who_is_doing_it: 512 > > obsolete_params: 160 > >

Re: [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c

2005-03-29 Thread Randy.Dunlap
Yum Rayan wrote: Attempt to reduce stack usage in module.c (linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3). Specifically from checkstack.pl Before patch -- who_is_doing_it: 512 obsolete_params: 160 After patch who_is_doing_it: none So all function local variables are in registers? obsol

[PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c

2005-03-28 Thread Yum Rayan
Attempt to reduce stack usage in module.c (linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3). Specifically from checkstack.pl Before patch -- who_is_doing_it: 512 obsolete_params: 160 After patch who_is_doing_it: none obsolete_params: 12 Also while at it, fix following in who_is_doing_it(