From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: check for function calls with struct or union on stack
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:38:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180726133829.bbe2677217f905c5df11d2d6@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00bf258587510ee96a27918293bd4d75622512c6.camel@perches.com>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:05:29 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> > used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
> > and it is possible for a passed-by-value aggregate to in fact
> > be passed in registers.
>
> RFC, No worries, I'll change it if it's OK.
>
> I'm testing it right now against the last 5000 commits
> (which takes awhile here) via
>
> $ git log --no-merges --format=oneline -5000 | \
> cut -f1 -d" " | \
> while read commit ; do \
> echo $commit; \
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --git $commit --types=aggregate_on_stack --quiet --no-summary ; \
> done
>
> It doesn't seem noisy at all, but maybe there are a few
> known structs like "struct timespec64" that could be
> excluded.
>
> The only real hits so far are:
>
> commit f2fb56afba11426ee5c9603b28a9827c530909c0
> WARNING: Unusual use of 'struct msm_display_topology' on stack
> #28374: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c:149:
> +enum dpu_rm_topology_name
> +dpu_rm_get_topology_name(struct msm_display_topology topology)
> +{
hm. 12 bytes. I don't know if this would be more efficient than using
const struct msm_display_topology*.
> and
>
> 33477d84c26bbfa626da2c032e567a90dd70a528
> WARNING: Unusual use of 'struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs' on stack
> #45: FILE: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:307:
> +static int cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0,
> + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t1)
> +{
Two 32-byte structures? That seems excessive.
Yes, a warning which sends developers back for a bit more thinnking
sounds useful.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-26 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-26 18:27 [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: check for function calls with struct or union on stack Joe Perches
2018-07-26 19:25 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-26 19:28 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-26 20:05 ` Joe Perches
2018-07-26 20:38 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2018-07-27 10:04 ` David Laight
2018-07-27 10:08 ` Joe Perches
2018-07-27 10:21 ` David Laight
2018-07-27 10:36 ` Joe Perches
2018-07-28 6:25 ` Julia Lawall
2018-07-28 17:14 ` Joe Perches
2018-07-28 17:24 ` Julia Lawall
2018-07-28 17:20 ` Joe Perches
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=20180726133829.bbe2677217f905c5df11d2d6@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).