[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190212144722.6bc516db@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:47:22 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] vsprintf: Factor out %pV handler as va_format()
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:58:25 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 14:00 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2019-02-08 09:11:17, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 16:23 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > Move the code from the long pointer() function. We are going to improve
> > > > error handling that will make it more complicated.
> > > >
> > > > This patch does not change the existing behavior.
> > >
> > > But doesn't this increase stack use?
> > > %pV is recursive and increasing the stack is undesired
> > > for this use.
> >
> > %pV handler is stack sensitive because the entire vsnprintf()
> > machinery is called recursively. This one extra call does
> > not make it much worse.
>
> That's an argument?.
>
> Refactoring is good, but you need to add
> __always_inline here.
>
If a single function call causes this to overflow the stack, then the
code is already broken to begin with.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists