[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxpFO4ixW=08ZcdcD9J1kU=B3mwoBJkPW8AKu0sKs8aKfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 09:53:10 -0700
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
tzimmermann@...e.de, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
mripard@...nel.org, airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] drm/format-helper: Add KUnit tests for drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_rgb332()
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:27 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
> > +CFLAGS_drm_format_helper_test.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN)
> >
>
> A comment on why this is needed would useful.
Ah, I think that should not be necessary anymore.
We added this to some tests to mitigate against compilers that didn't
optimize away stack-local structs used internally in KUNIT_EXPECT*.
Functions with ~30 or so EXPECTs could get flagged for excessively
large stack frames.
But in 5.18, I had some patches to reduce the naive stack usage from
[48..88] => [8..32] bytes per EXPECT.
I also have some RFC patches out to get it down to [0, 24] bytes.
So going forward, this should only be necessary if you have something
like 100s of EXPECTs in a single function (in which case you should
also consider splitting that function up).
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists