Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Mar 1997 20:03:35 +0000 (GMT) | From | Philip Blundell <> | Subject | Re: subl $0x<huge_number>,%esp (was Re: a.out 66% faster...) |
| |
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Greg Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Philip Blundell wrote: > > > On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > > > Okay, here are the list of 0x100+ "offenders" for v2.0.29. Out of interest > > > > > d54 (gcc2.7.2) <de4x5_ioctl> <--- Wheee! 3412/4096 = 83% > > > > Yow. That's what comes of allocating an automatic array of 512 ethernet > > addresses. A patch something along the lines of the following ought to > > make things better. > > > > phil > > > > --- de4x5.c~ Sun Feb 2 13:18:37 1997 > > +++ de4x5.c Sun Mar 2 15:42:34 1997 > > @@ -4656,11 +4656,17 @@ > > int i, j, status = 0; > > s32 omr; > > union { > > - u8 addr[(HASH_TABLE_LEN * ETH_ALEN)]; > > - u16 sval[(HASH_TABLE_LEN * ETH_ALEN) >> 1]; > > - u32 lval[(HASH_TABLE_LEN * ETH_ALEN) >> 2]; > > + u8 *addr; > > + u16 *sval; > > + u32 *lval; > > } tmp; > > - > > + > > + tmp = kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL, HASH_TABLE_LEN * ETH_ALEN); > > + if (!tmp) { > > + printk("%s: memory squeeze\n"); > > eh? What's %s referencing?
My mistake.
printk("%s: memory squeeze\n", dev);
phil
| |