From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the final tree (driver-core tree related) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:51 +0200 Message-ID: <201009140922.51566.trenn@suse.de> References: <20100907115426.fc0c3e13.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <201009132126.14115.trenn@suse.de> <20100913205712.GB18766@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56016 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751574Ab0INHWy (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:22:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100913205712.GB18766@kroah.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH Cc: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , Jason Baron , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 13 September 2010 22:57:12 Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:26:13PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > On Monday 13 September 2010 17:51:55 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:34:04 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:54:26AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > > > > > allnoconfig) produced this warning: > > > > > > > > > > kernel/params.c: In function 'parse_args': > > > > > kernel/params.c:233: warning: the frame size of 1032 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes > > > > > > > > > > Introduced by commit 32e6407e9361cd1aac39ff6b744cad48d1802a08 ("Dynamic > > > > > Debug: Introduce global fake module param module.ddebug") which added a > > > > > 1024 byte array to the stack ... > > > > > > > > Wierd, why didn't this show up yesterday? The patch was in that tree > > > > then, right? > > > > > > > > Thomas, care to fix this up? > > > > > > ping. Is Thomas around?? > > Yep, sorry for not responding. > > > > I tried to reproduce this on ppc64, but above file compiled without > > warning with dynamic debug set. Thus I thought this still came from the > > old patch. > > > > I have another solution for that, please drop above patch. > > Jason pointed out that kernel boot params for compiled-in modules are > > not recognized correctly. I fiddled with that for quite some time last week... > > > > I should be able to send something tomorrow. > > I will include lkml as it touches several files, would be great if Greg > > can pick them up again if feedback is positive. > > Ok, which exact patch do you want me to drop, the "Introduce global fake > module param..." one? Yes, please. Thanks, Thomas