[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070717170127.GJ11781@holomorphy.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:01:27 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...?
At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all
>> code paths are safe, or introduce another viable alternative (such as
>> Matt's idea for extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k
>> stacks option makes sense.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:54:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Any x86-32 path unsafe with 4K stacks is almost certainly unsafe with 8K
> stacks because the 8K stacks do not have seperate IRQ stack paths, so you
> have the same space but split. It might be less predictable on 8K stacks
> but it isn't absent.
At hch's suggestion I rewrote the separate IRQ stack configurability
patch into one making IRQ stacks mandatory and unconfigurable, and
hence enabled with 8K stacks.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists