On Sun, 2022-06-26 at 16:51 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 01:39:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-06-26 at 13:19 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 12:53 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > In a reply to the printbufs thread, I wrote a proposal to use an > > > > alloc to reduce stack in vsprintf when CONFIG_KALLSYMS is enabled. > > > > > > > > No one has replied to this but I think it's somewhat sensible. > > > > > > I think that's a bad idea. > > > > Somewhat sensible not sensible... > > > > > Those things are *literally* called from panic situations, which may > > > be while holding core memory allocation locks, or similar. > > > > True, and special_hex_number was used on alloc failure. > > > > > Now, you are correct that the stack buffer is annoying. But I think > > > the proper way to fix that is to say "we already *have* the target > > > buffer, let's use it". > > > > OK, and that's true for all the temp stack buffers in every %p<foo>. > > Serious question: why are you trying to half-ass just _one_ of these functions > when I've been working on solving stack allocations in all of them? Because the stack use in _this_ function is quite large. Backporting to stable would be trivial. No so with printbufs. > if you want to help out instead of just slag what I'm > doing... well, it'd be nice... Also nice to _be_ nice. Honestly Kent, I haven't seen much of that from you.
