On 09/23/13 15:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
I remember there was a discussion of not dropping variable length array
support, wasn't there ?
We should definitely drop it. The feature is an abomination. I thought
gcc only allowed them at the end of structs, in the middle of a struct
it's just f*cking insane beyond belief.
That said, for *this* particular case, that USB widget driver already
does a ton of small kmalloc's and then remembers the addresses
independently. People may not care about performance, but it *might*
be a good idea to just do one kmalloc()/kfree(), and then still have
those pointer variables, but just be offsets within that one
allocation.
That's what gcc has to basically do for that thing internally
*anyway*, just hidden behind a horrible construct that should never
have existed.
We can certainly do that instead.
I believe I already have a version of the patch which does just that
(without using macros). I will post it for comment.
Thanks,
Behan
--
Behan Webster
behanw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
