[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3078981761ff2a37354221eb79a1c24e43c30896.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:42:30 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Yue Haibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, geert+renesas@...der.be,
me@...in.cc, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] lib/vsprintf: Make function pointer_string static
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 10:39 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ added Joe ]
> > Good question. I have just double checked it. And pointer_string() with
> > "noinline_for_stack" does not make any difference in the stack
> > usage here.
> >
> > I actually played with this before:
> >
> > "noinline_for_stack" is a black magic added by
> > the commit cf3b429b03e827c7180 ("vsprintf.c: use noinline_for_stack").
>
> From what I understand, "noinline_for_stack" is just noinline and the
> "for_stack" part is just to document that the noinline is used for
> stack purposes. If the compiler doesn't inline the function without the
> noinline, then it wont make any difference.
>
> The point was to not inline the function because it can be used in
> stack critical areas, and that it's better to do the call than to
> increase the stack.
It was added because of %pV is recursive and recursive
functions can eat
a lot of stack.
Using noinline_for_stack was just a bit more self-documenting.
I do still think it's a useful notation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists