On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>
> In fact, in my tree, this change brings the stack allocation instruction
> down to:
>
> save%sp, -824, %sp !
>
> which is actually BETTER than what the old per-cpu code got:
>
> save%sp, -984, %sp !
>
>
From: Alexey Dobriyan
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:27:52 +0300
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:23:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Herbert Xu
>> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:16:08 +1100
>>
>> > OK, so we grew by 1136 - 888 = 248. Keep in mind that 128 of
>> > that is expected since we moved W o
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:23:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:16:08 +1100
>
> > OK, so we grew by 1136 - 888 = 248. Keep in mind that 128 of
> > that is expected since we moved W onto the stack.
>
> Right.
>
> > I guess we could go back to the per
From: Herbert Xu
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:16:08 +1100
> OK, so we grew by 1136 - 888 = 248. Keep in mind that 128 of
> that is expected since we moved W onto the stack.
Right.
> I guess we could go back to the percpu solution, what do you
> think?
I'm not entirely sure, we might have to.
sh
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:11:13AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:58:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI, I just started seeing this on sparc32 after all those
> >> sha512 "optimizations":
> >>
> >> crypto/sha512_generic.c: In function 'sha512_transform':
>
From: Herbert Xu
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:01:28 +1100
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:58:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> FYI, I just started seeing this on sparc32 after all those
>> sha512 "optimizations":
>>
>> crypto/sha512_generic.c: In function 'sha512_transform':
>> crypto/sha512_gene
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:58:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>
> FYI, I just started seeing this on sparc32 after all those
> sha512 "optimizations":
>
> crypto/sha512_generic.c: In function 'sha512_transform':
> crypto/sha512_generic.c:135:1: warning: the frame size of 1136 bytes is
> larger t
