[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi4snadB1LiV=FAUTpHNumsF=GN=U5vckWaLMbnU5nfQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 13:54:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC[ Alloc in vsprintf
On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 1:39 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> OK, and that's true for all the temp stack buffers in every %p<foo>.
Yup.
A lot of them are simply due to it just being simple, and when the
temp buffer is of a fairly limited size, "simple is good".
But yeah, that KSYM_SYMBOL_LEN thing was questionable before, and as
it grows with KSYM_NAME_LEN growing, it's getting pretty ridiculous.
For example, the buffer in "number()" looks very reasonable to me,
since it's not only pretty small (24 bytes on 64-bit architectures).
it has that special alignment requirement too.
So I don't think those temporary stack buffers are necessarily wrong
in general, but there's a point where they go from "ok, there's being
_simple_ and then there's _overly_simplistic_".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists