[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <902BC866-59A0-4E50-8299-64D38D9E93B1@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:59:56 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Uninline kcalloc()
On Sep 24, 2007, at 01:35:08, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:03:49 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan said:
>> -static inline void *kcalloc(size_t n, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> -{
>> - if (n != 0 && size > ULONG_MAX / n)
>> - return NULL;
>> - return __kmalloc(n * size, flags | __GFP_ZERO);
>> -}
>> +void *kcalloc(size_t n, size_t size, gfp_t flags);
>
> NAK.
>
> This busticates some pretty subtle code in mm/slab.c that uses uses
> __builtin_return_address() for debugging - if you do this, then the
> "calling function" gets listed as "kcalloc()" rather than the much
> more useful "function that called kcalloc()" (which is what you
> care about).
>
> (I remember going around and around multiple times getting those
> stupid inlines set up right, so that feature actually did something
> useful, otherwise kcalloc and kzalloc didn't report where they were
> called from).
Proper fix is to give __kmalloc a "void *caller" parameter and have
all of the various wrapper functions pass in the value of
__builtin_return_address() appropriately. I believe that even works
properly for inline functions which may or may not be inlined.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists