On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:52:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Nah, users don't need more senseless options. This is really only useful > > for dinky platforms or platforms with limited static image size (like > > sparc64). > > > > If you make this user selectable, someone will do, and then an endless > > stream of table not big enough warnings will be posted. > > > > Also, its only 4MB (IIRC), so who cares. > > I care :-) > > Not because of platforms with not limited memory, but because of platforms > with boot loaders that have silly kernel size limitations, and start > scribbling over the DTB or even theirselves when copying a large kernel image. Right, that's the weird platforms clause above, and those can select the option. > BTW, is there any particular reason these huge arrays are in BSS, and not > allocated dynamically? That would solve my problems as well... Is there a memory allocator available before _any_ locks are used, and that itself also doesn't use locks?
