[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4810AB56.2030008@sandeen.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:46:30 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> What actually brings bad reputation is shipping a 4k option that is
>> known to break under some circumstances.
>>
> How about making 4k stacks incompatible with those circumstances then?
> I.e. is you select 4k stacks, then you can't select XFS because we know
> that _may_ fail. Similiar for ndiswrapper networking, and other
> stuff where problems have been noticed.
Problem is, it's the storage configuration (at administration time, not
kernel build time) that matters, too.
I have XFS on Fedora with 4k stacks on SATA /dev/sdb1 on my x86 mythbox,
and it's perfectly fine. But that's a nice, simple setup. If I stacked
more things over/under it, I'd be more likely to have trouble.
-Eric
--
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