xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review: allocate alloc args

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: review: allocate alloc args
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:27:06 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20070423223257.GM32602149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070419073216.GT48531920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070423212201.GB13572@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070423223257.GM32602149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:22:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

>> I don't like doing even more dynamic allocations that deep
>> down in the stack.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of it either, but I don't really see any other
> option here. We need a bunch of temporary space for structures
> *somewhere*, and if there isn't enough stack space then it's
> got to come frm somewhere else.

How about a global array of such structures which can be accessed as
needed.  :)

/me runs

I think Christoph is on the right track here; find ways to make the
functions use less stack down the chain, either by breaking them up,
breaking up the large structures into what's actually needed, or
something along those types of refactoring lines... I'm so burned out on
this stuff though.  :)

-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>