Re: [PATCH] kallsyms: fix potential overflow in binary search

[Paulo Marques]

Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > This will probably never trigger... but it won't hurt to be careful.
> >  Not "probably", this will never trigger _period_. If you ever have more
> > than 2^31 symbols in the kernel's kallsyms table you'll have worse problems
> > to worry about than the binary search overflowing.
> >
> >  So, I don't think it is worth this des-optimization at all...
>
> Yes it is. It serves as correct reference code and the
> "deoptimization" is not measurable.

Hum? "reference code"? in the middle of a kallsyms function?

And are you really worried about contiguous arrays that are bigger than 
2^31 elements? What kind of kernel structure would that be?

The fact that the "deoptimization" isn't measurable isn't an excuse for 
unnecessary bloat.

This all seems like a wild goose chase to me...

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"To be, or not to be? That is ..... liable to be removed at -O2 and above."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/