Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2020-05-29 21:43:47) > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:26 PM Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2020-05-29 21:15:26) > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c > > > index 9aabe82dcd3a..30108c330db8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c > > > @@ -323,9 +323,8 @@ static bool expect_reserve_fail(struct drm_mm *mm, struct drm_mm_node *node) > > > return false; > > > } > > > > > > -static bool check_reserve_boundaries(struct drm_mm *mm, > > > - unsigned int count, > > > - u64 size) > > > +static noinline_for_stack bool > > > +check_reserve_boundaries(struct drm_mm *mm, unsigned int count, u64 size) > > > { > > > const struct boundary { > > > > It's this const [] right? Hmm, if we felt adventurous that could be a > > small set of multiplication factors (0, -1, 1, count, count+1, ...) and > > made static. > > That was my first thought, but I couldn't figure out whether 'count' > could be replaced by any compile-time constant. I just realised I sent a sketch of a patch to the wrong place. If we replace struct boundary with { int start; int size; const char *name; } that should reduce it from 408 to 272. (Where start, size are the multiples.) Probably not worth the hassle, the saving is too small overall leaving it uncomfortably close to a future warning. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel