Am 2014-05-07 18:36, schrieb Jay Aurabind:
> Hello list, Time for a noob discussion,
>
> When I was building the kernel, I found a warning from drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c, that the Frame size is larger than 1024 bytes. Apparently the stack frame size can be changed from the config, but my question is, whether 1024 bytes low ? I am on an x86_64 (core i3).
>
> abx500-core.c had an object of struct device being allocated on stack. So
> dynamically allocating it makes the warning go away. Are there any
> implications on using dynamic allocation on this particular code? I
> mean, could there be some reason why the original developer went with static option ?
kmalloc may sleep and is therefore sometimes not recommended to be used.
>
>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c b/drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c
> index f3a15aa..709a84f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/abx500-core.c
> @@ -154,15 +154,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(abx500_startup_irq_enabled);
> void abx500_dump_all_banks(void)
> {
> struct abx500_ops *ops;
> - struct device dummy_child = {NULL};
> + struct device *dummy_child;
> struct abx500_device_entry *dev_entry;
>
> + dummy_child = kzalloc(sizeof(struct device),GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> list_for_each_entry(dev_entry, &abx500_list, list) {
> - dummy_child.parent = dev_entry->dev;
> + dummy_child->parent = dev_entry->dev;
> ops = &dev_entry->ops;
>
> if ((ops != NULL) && (ops->dump_all_banks != NULL))
> - ops->dump_all_banks(&dummy_child);
> + ops->dump_all_banks(dummy_child);
> }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(abx500_dump_all_banks);
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
