> 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