On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:02:26 +0000 Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 Feb 2008, Peter Osterlund told this: > > > Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> But while I'd normally blame pktcdvd there's only one pktcdvd function > >> in these tracebacks (pkt_open) and it's not got a significant stack > >> footprint. > > > > Did you verify that with "make checkstack" or just by looking at the > > source code? On my system, pkt_open() consumes 584 bytes because the > > compiler decides to inline lots of functions that would not normally > > be part of long call chains. The following patch fixes that problem on > > my system. > > I just looked at the source; I forgot `make checkstack' existed. > > On this system: > > 0xc0263e0f pkt_open [vmlinux]: 556 > > which is nearly as bad. > > (As an aside, I'm surprised I didn't oops when packet-writing as well: > > 0xc021270d udf_process_sequence [vmlinux]: 692 > 0xc020f43d udf_add_entry [vmlinux]: 628 > > owch. I guess that's called via a shorter call chain...) udf_process_sequence() seems to be another victim of gcc inlining. udf_add_entry() defines a couple of 256-byte local arrays. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
