From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754728AbXIPXig (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:38:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754095AbXIPXiQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:38:16 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:38138 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754068AbXIPXiP (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:38:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070916.163814.77649402.davem@davemloft.net> To: crquan@gmail.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cr_quan@163.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] netlink: use a statically allocated nl_table instead From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <11886759772663-git-send-email-crquan@gmail.com> References: <1188675959178-git-send-email-crquan@gmail.com> <11886759682348-git-send-email-crquan@gmail.com> <11886759772663-git-send-email-crquan@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.1.52 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) 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 From: Denis Cheng Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:45:59 +0800 > if the table is always fixed size with MAX_LINKS entries, why not use a statically > allocated table straightforwardly? > > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng I made the explicit decision to dynamically allocate because many systems have limits on how large the kernel image can be and therefore the less we statically allocate huge tables (constant size or not) the better. Lockdep is the worst offender, for example, it's completely awful. It consumes 4MB of kernel BSS space when enabled on a 64-bit platform. Patch not applied.