* [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