From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7ECB1A0CE5 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:31:48 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1421800292.4961.215.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl_pci: Fix pci stack build bug with FRAME_WARN From: Scott Wood To: Kim Phillips Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:31:32 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20150120140349.a7a9885065c241b555b91717@freescale.com> References: <20150120140349.a7a9885065c241b555b91717@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Wang Dongsheng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Himangi Saraogi , Anton Blanchard , Paul Mackerras , Aaron Sierra , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 14:03 -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > Fix this: > > CC arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.o > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c: In function 'fsl_pcie_check_link': > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c:91:1: error: the frame size of 1360 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > > when configuring FRAME_WARN, by converting the allocation from the > stack to the heap. We use GFP_ATOMIC since this function can be > called with interrupts disabled. > > Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips > --- > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c > index 6455c1e..635d743 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c > @@ -69,11 +69,13 @@ static int fsl_pcie_check_link(struct pci_controller *hose) > > if (hose->indirect_type & PPC_INDIRECT_TYPE_FSL_CFG_REG_LINK) { > if (hose->ops->read == fsl_indirect_read_config) { > - struct pci_bus bus; > - bus.number = hose->first_busno; > - bus.sysdata = hose; > - bus.ops = hose->ops; > - indirect_read_config(&bus, 0, PCIE_LTSSM, 4, &val); > + struct pci_bus *bus; > + bus = kmalloc(sizeof(*bus), GFP_ATOMIC); > + bus->number = hose->first_busno; Missing check for allocation failure. Do we not have a real struct pci_bus we can use here? Or refactor indirect_read_config() to take hose and bus number instead? If putting a pci_bus struct on the stack is no longer OK, then fake_pci_bus() should be fixed as well. I wonder if GCC is allocating separate pci_bus structs on the stack for this one and the one that early_read_config_dword() uses... -Scott