[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100208141716.FB55.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:22:22 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
miltonm@....com, aeb@....nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit
>
> Hi,
>
> > Why do we need page size independent stack size? It seems to have
> > compatibility breaking risk.
>
> I don't think so. The current behaviour is clearly wrong, we dont need a
> 16x larger stack just because you went from a 4kB to a 64kB base page
> size. The user application stack usage is the same in both cases.
I didn't discuss which behavior is better. Michael said he want to apply
his patch to 2.6.32 & 2.6.33. stable tree never accept the breaking
compatibility patch.
Your answer doesn't explain why can't we wait it until next merge window.
btw, personally, I like page size indepent stack size. but I'm not sure
why making stack size independency is related to bug fix.
--
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