From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263434AbTDCVKG (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:10:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263438AbTDCVKG (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:10:06 -0500 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:42147 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263434AbTDCVKD (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:10:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:21:37 +0000 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: "Cameron, Steve" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arrays@hp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] reduce stack in cpqarray.c::ida_ioctl() Message-Id: <20030403132137.746cf532.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <45B36A38D959B44CB032DA427A6E10640451339C@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net> References: <45B36A38D959B44CB032DA427A6E10640451339C@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:18:57 -0600 "Cameron, Steve" wrote: | | > This patch to 2.5.66 reduces stack usage in ida_ioctl() by about | > 0x500 bytes (on x86). | | Looks ok to me, (but i haven't tried it.) Me either (-ENOHARDWARE). | > There is a possibility that the allocation here should be done one time | > only and the buffer pointer saved for re-use instead of allocating it | > on each call to ida_ioctl. If that's desirable, I'll have a few | > questions. | | No, I don't think so. I think we should | allow for the possibllity of concurrent calls | to this ioctl. (whether linux allows it is | another question. I think it used to be the case | that only one ioctl could get in at a time... I can't | recall if it's still that way.) Well, my questions were along those lines, like: . allocate a buffer per hba or per disk? . how much is ida_ioctl() [passthru] used? . it's not on a normal(!?!) read path, is it? if so, using kmalloc() that could fail would be a bad idea. -- ~Randy