From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADE1C28CBC for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C783E206E6 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727124AbgEFFM1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2020 01:12:27 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59278 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725821AbgEFFM1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2020 01:12:27 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E896DACD5; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Boris Ostrovsky , Stefano Stabellini , Yan Yankovskyi , Wei Liu , xen-devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , clang-built-linux References: <20200505141546.824573-1-arnd@arndb.de> <30d49e6d-570b-f6fd-3a6f-628abcc8b127@suse.com> <48893239-dde9-4e94-040d-859f4348816d@suse.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= Message-ID: <2c6e4b36-6618-1889-55c4-16eeb1ef6f57@suse.com> Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 07:12:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05.05.20 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:02 PM Jürgen Groß wrote: >> On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >>> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does >>> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the >>> patch that way. >> >> Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to >> extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the >> map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it >> dynamically instead of having it on the stack. >> >> Would you be fine doing this? > > This is a little more complex than I'd want to do without doing any testing > (and no, I don't want to do the testing either) ;-) > > It does sound like a better approach though. I take this as you are fine with me writing the patch and adding you as "Reported-by:"? Juergen