Messages in this thread | | | From | "Yu, Fenghua" <> | Subject | RE: [GIT PULL] x86/microcode for v3.9-rc1 | Date | Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:09:27 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@alien8.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:53 PM > To: Yu, Fenghua; H. Peter Anvin > Cc: H. Peter Anvin; Linus Torvalds; Ingo Molnar; Linux Kernel Mailing > List; Thomas Gleixner; Yinghai Lu > Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/microcode for v3.9-rc1 > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:28:06PM +0000, Yu, Fenghua wrote: > >> gcc is warning that the function is using lots of stack. In the > >> context that it is running in this is most likely not a problem > >> given how small the overrun is, but it might be worthwhile to see if > >> there is anything which can be moved out to static storage or some > >> other variant. > >> > >> Static storage is tricky to use in this context since it runs in > >> flat linear mode (without paging, and therefore without the +3 GB > >> offset) on 32 bits. > > > > The errors might be related to the arrays defined > > mc_saved_tmp[MAX_UCODE_COUNT]. > > > > Could you send your .config to me so that I can reproduce the issue? > > I don't see the issue in my build environment and in Fengguang's test > > environment. > > Ok, forget it. It was some local .config file corruption which caused > include/generated/autoconf.h and include/config/auto.conf to have a > line > > CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=1024 > > which would cause the warnings. > > The 1024 ceiling value is also consistent with the warnings complaining > about something being > 1024 bytes. > > Default CONFIG_FRAME_WARN on x86_64 is 2048 which explains why those > warnings never trigger on 64-bit. > > So, we all can relax ourselves, especially I :-) > > Thanks. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. > --
Ok. Agree, 1024 is too small. Nice to know that:)
Merci.
-Fenghua
| |