* [PATCH]: bunzip2: Fix warning in get_next_block() @ 2010-05-22 14:04 Prarit Bhargava 2010-05-22 14:07 ` Al Viro 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Prarit Bhargava @ 2010-05-22 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel, stable, phillip, alain, hpa; +Cc: Prarit Bhargava Fix checkstack compile warning in get_next_block(): lib/decompress_bunzip2.c: In function `get_next_block': lib/decompress_bunzip2.c:511: warning: the frame size of 1920 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> diff --git a/lib/decompress_bunzip2.c b/lib/decompress_bunzip2.c index a4e971d..8a78788 100644 --- a/lib/decompress_bunzip2.c +++ b/lib/decompress_bunzip2.c @@ -158,9 +158,10 @@ static int INIT get_next_block(struct bunzip_data *bd) int *base = NULL; int *limit = NULL; int dbufCount, nextSym, dbufSize, groupCount, selector, - i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors, - byteCount[256]; - unsigned char uc, symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256], *selectors; + i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors; + static int byteCount[256]; + unsigned char uc, *selectors; + static unsigned char symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256]; unsigned int *dbuf, origPtr; dbuf = bd->dbuf; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]: bunzip2: Fix warning in get_next_block() 2010-05-22 14:04 [PATCH]: bunzip2: Fix warning in get_next_block() Prarit Bhargava @ 2010-05-22 14:07 ` Al Viro 2010-05-22 18:07 ` Prarit Bhargava 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Al Viro @ 2010-05-22 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Prarit Bhargava; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable, phillip, alain, hpa On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:04:07AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > Fix checkstack compile warning in get_next_block(): > > lib/decompress_bunzip2.c: In function `get_next_block': > lib/decompress_bunzip2.c:511: warning: the frame size of 1920 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes > int dbufCount, nextSym, dbufSize, groupCount, selector, > - i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors, > - byteCount[256]; > - unsigned char uc, symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256], *selectors; > + i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors; > + static int byteCount[256]; > + unsigned char uc, *selectors; > + static unsigned char symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256]; > unsigned int *dbuf, origPtr; Um... Some details might be useful, starting with "why can't that function be called from several processes at once"... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]: bunzip2: Fix warning in get_next_block() 2010-05-22 14:07 ` Al Viro @ 2010-05-22 18:07 ` Prarit Bhargava 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Prarit Bhargava @ 2010-05-22 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Al Viro; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable, phillip, alain, hpa On 05/22/2010 10:07 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:04:07AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> Fix checkstack compile warning in get_next_block(): >> >> lib/decompress_bunzip2.c: In function `get_next_block': >> lib/decompress_bunzip2.c:511: warning: the frame size of 1920 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes >> > > >> int dbufCount, nextSym, dbufSize, groupCount, selector, >> - i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors, >> - byteCount[256]; >> - unsigned char uc, symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256], *selectors; >> + i, j, k, t, runPos, symCount, symTotal, nSelectors; >> + static int byteCount[256]; >> + unsigned char uc, *selectors; >> + static unsigned char symToByte[256], mtfSymbol[256]; >> unsigned int *dbuf, origPtr; >> > Um... Some details might be useful, starting with "why can't that function > be called from several processes at once"... > Al, to be honest, I'm not 100% if this is single-threaded or not :/. I was hoping that by throwing the patch out I would get either an ACK or a NAK on it because of the single threaded issue. It seems to me (and I admit I might be totally wrong) that the bunzip2 function is only called during early boot, #ifdef PREBOOT STATIC int INIT decompress(unsigned char *buf, int len, int(*fill)(void*, unsigned int), int(*flush)(void*, unsigned int), unsigned char *outbuf, int *pos, void(*error_fn)(char *x)) { return bunzip2(buf, len - 4, fill, flush, outbuf, pos, error_fn); } #endif ... which (again, if the assumptions I'm making are correct) means that only one cpu will be active. /me hopes someone will correct him if he's wrong and that's why hpa and phillip are cc'd directly If it isn't single threaded, then you're right -- a PREBOOT malloc is the way to go. P. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-22 18:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-05-22 14:04 [PATCH]: bunzip2: Fix warning in get_next_block() Prarit Bhargava 2010-05-22 14:07 ` Al Viro 2010-05-22 18:07 ` Prarit Bhargava
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox