On 11/27/18 11:32 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Hi! > > I've been hoping for some time that someone more competent would fix > the stack frame size warning in rtnl_newlink(), but looks like I'll > have to take a stab at it myself :) That's the only warning I see > in most of my builds.
Somehow my CONFIG_FRAME_WARN got set to 2048 in all of my config files, so I don't see the warning. > > First patch refactors away a somewhat surprising if (1) code block. > Reindentation will most likely cause cherry-pick problems but OTOH > rtnl_newlink() doesn't seem to be changed often, so perhaps we can > risk it in the name of cleaner code? The unnecessary indentation with the if(1) has always annoyed me. I like the cleanup, but strictly speaking if Dave objects patch 2 can be done without it. > > Second patch fixes the warning in simplest possible way. I was > pondering if there is any more clever solution, but I can't see it.. > rtnl_newlink() is quite long with a lot of possible execution paths > so doing memory allocations half way through leads to very ugly > results. Seems like a reasonable first step and in time slave_attr can follow suit. Those are the 2 high runners for stack usage.
