Em Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:41:23 +0100 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:25:30PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Well, for sure using an structure will help to avoid missing a > > parameter or exchanging its order. The stack usage won't reduce, > > though, because the structure will keep using the stack. > > If you allocate it on the stack of the caller, yes. If you kmalloc it, > no. Sure, but calling kmalloc while handling a memory error doesn't seem a very good idea, IMHO. So, better to either use an already allocated space (or the stack). > > In any case, passing a pointer to struct edac_raw_error_desc only will > allow on x86_64 (and i386 AFAICT) to use only registers to pass callee > function arguments. Which is always a win. You probably need to stare at > compiler output to see what gcc actually does with -O2 optimizations. Yes, I know, but, on the other hand, there's the additional cost of copying almost all data into the structure. > > As I can't foresee the usage of this function call outside the core > > and by the GHES driver, I'm not sure what would be the better. > > Having an error descriptor is always better, even if it were only for > clarity's and simplicity's sake. Yes, the code is now clearer. Ok, I'll keep this patch on my git. I'll likely fold it with the previous one on the final patchset. -- Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
