On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:13:15PM -0700, Sam Povilus wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:03:08AM -0700, Sam Povilus wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 08:59:08AM -0700, Sam Povilus wrote: > >> > > The number of uartlites should be set by a kernel parameter instead of > >> > > using a #define. This allows the user to set the number of uartlites > >> > > using only kconfig and not modifying kernel source. > >> > > > >> > > The uartlite is used by FPGAs that support a basically unlimited number > >> > > of uarts so limiting it at 16 dosn't make sense as users might need more > >> > > than that. > >> > > >> > Shouldn't you bound the size here? What happens if you ask for 10000 > >> > uarts? > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > > >> > greg k-h > >> > >> Theoretically there is no limit except FPGA hardware and who knows > >> what FPGA designers are thinking. From my understanding fom a kernel > >> standpoint it changes the number of "struct uart_port"s declared > >> and therefore the amount of memory used by the module, and how > >> much time it takes to do lookup. > > > > There are other internal issues when you try to create zillions of uart > > devices, so please, set a sane boundry for this. > > > > How many uarts did you test this patch with? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > I think 256 should be a fairly safe for the next 10 years limit. Does that > sound reasonable to you? Sure. It is easy to increment later if needed. Can you resend a new patch with this restriction in it? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
