[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A55BA8.2060205@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:54:32 +0100
From: Frank Seidel <fseidel@...e.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
Cc: Frank Seidel <fseidel@...e.de>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, nhorman@...driver.com,
lho@...c.com, kaber@...sh.net, darrenrjenkins@...il.com,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Frank Seidel <frank@...eidel.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][trivial] crypto: tcrypt - reduce stack size
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Frank Seidel wrote:
> Wel...
>
> Using kmalloc() increases code size, makes the code more complex, and increases
> the risk of introducing a memory leak now or later.
Ok, admitted.
>> I just stumbled over tcrypt on the make checkstack output and as also
>> the kerneljanitors todo advises to reduce this footprint where possible
>> i just wanted to help out here.
>
> Reducing stack usage is fine. However, for a loadable test module without
> concurrency issues it's far easier to do that by just making the data static.
Is PATCHv3 then ok for you?
Thanks,
Frank
--
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