large frame size warning when compiling

[Jay Aurabind]

On Friday 09 May 2014 09:00 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 17:39:21 +0530, Jay Aurabind said:
> 
>> So shouldnt we assume that initial value (somewhere around 6K) should be
>> enough since the maximum it went down is only till its 50% mark ?
> 
> Depends.  Are you of the "we haven't seen it before, so it can't happen"
> school of programming, or the "it could plausibly happen, so we should
> guard against it" school?
> 
> Consider you get down to that 6K mark - and now you hit that 1K allocation
> that you didn't bother cleaning up because "we've never seen it before".  And
> then you hit a hardIRQ that *also* didn't bother cleaning up their 1K allocation
> that *that* kernel hacker "had never seen it before".  What happens to your
> system?  And how long is it going to take for you to figure out why every
> several weeks, your system dies with a totally different random memory
> overlay?
> 

Point taken. Thank you Valdis, Martin, Paul and Frank for sharing your
thoughts.

Cheers,
Jay

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 278 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140510/a8dc2df7/attachment.bin