On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:20:35PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:39:15 -0300 > Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2012/4/16 Ben Widawsky <[email protected]>: > > > Sparse doesn't like: > > > "error: bad constant expression" > > > > > > > <bikeshedding> > > I know you'll hate me for asking, but: how difficult is it to fix sparse? > > Adding those mallocs/frees increases the code complexity, making it > > harder to read... > > </bikeshedding> > > > > I don't consider this a bikeshed. I've always been "under the > impression" C99 was sort of taboo in the kernel. In this case > specifically, it's never a great idea to allocate an unknown amount of > stack space as it probably messes with some of the static tools and > such. > > In other words, I believe the right thing to do here is not to fix > sparse. Plus there is precedent in other drivers to fix this kind of > thing for sparse. I originally had this patch create an arbitrarily > large object on the stack and fail if the args_len was too big. I can > go back to that certainly if people prefer.
I've picked up the first 2 patches of this series for -next, with a tiny bikeshed on the 2nd one. I've gotten stuck while reviewing the next one, I think it'd be good if we can quickly discuss these on irc. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
