On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 16:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:08:06 -0700
>> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
>> > []
>> > > @@ -655,11 +655,12 @@ char *resource_string(char *buf, char *end, struct resource *res,
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > static noinline_for_stack
>> > > -char *mac_address_string(char *buf, char *end, u8 *addr,
>> > > - struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
>> > > +char *hex_string(char *buf, char *end, u8 *addr, struct printf_spec spec,
>> > > + const char *fmt)
>> > > {
>> > > - char mac_addr[sizeof("xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx")];
>> > > - char *p = mac_addr;
>> > > + char hex_str[64*3]; /* support up to 64 bytes to print */
>> >
>> > Might be too much stack though.
>>
>> Yes, it's a bit marginal, as this new capability might be used in debug
>> or crash situations where we're deep into the stack. The average case
>> could be improved by using alloca()-style allocation.
>
> Or maybe support larger sizes with a smaller
> stack buffer and a while loop.
What do you think about mixed approach? Let's say we would use buffer
on stack for 8 bytes or less, and allocated buffer in case of larger
input. It allows to keep implementation simple.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
