From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] kunit: move binary assertion out of line
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:42:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2YJuUvZnK4DEYoCrj=DZwvXKnN1Y2bLkAKd7gp1us3eQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g47+_oyqsS0o0kQ+CaLNtjqbvOmQc-n0Ch1jAT6P6RSFiw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 3:13 AM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 5:43 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > In combination with the structleak gcc plugin, kunit can lead to excessive
> > stack usage when each assertion adds another structure to the stack from
> > of the calling function:
> >
> > base/test/property-entry-test.c:99:1: error: the frame size of 3032 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
> >
> > As most assertions are binary, change those over to a direct function
> > call that does not have this problem. This can probably be improved
> > further, I just went for a straightforward conversion, but a function
> > call with 12 fixed arguments plus varargs it not great either.
>
> Yeah, I am not exactly excited by maintaining such a set of functions.
Ok.
> I don't think anyone wants to go with the heap allocation route.
>
> Along the lines of the union/single copy idea[1]. What if we just put
> a union of all the assertion types in the kunit struct? One is already
> allocated for every test case and we only need one assertion object
> for each test case at a time, so I imagine that sould work.
Ah right, that should work fine, and may also lead to better object
code if the compiler can avoid repeated assignments of the same
values, e.g. ".file = __FILE__".
Arnd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-10 13:43 [PATCH] [RFC] kunit: move binary assertion out of line Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-14 2:12 ` Brendan Higgins
2020-01-14 2:13 ` Brendan Higgins
2020-01-14 8:42 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAK8P3a2YJuUvZnK4DEYoCrj=DZwvXKnN1Y2bLkAKd7gp1us3eQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).