[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <964806c4-db73-a70b-2168-24168e4b5aab@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 10:19:41 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-parisc <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.4 00/28] 6.4.1-rc1 review - hppa argument list too long
On 7/3/23 09:49, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 00:08, Helge Deller <deller@....de> wrote:
>>
>> Great, that patch fixes it!
>
> Yeah, I was pretty sure this was it, but it's good to have it
> confirmed. Committed.
>
FWIW, my qemu boot tests didn't find any problems with other architectures.
Guenter
>> I wonder if you want to
>> #define VM_STACK_EARLY VM_GROWSDOWN
>> even for the case where the stack grows down too (instead of 0),
>> just to make clear that in both cases the stack goes downwards initially.
>
> No, that wouldn't work for the simple reason that the special bits in
> VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP are always cleared after the stack setup is
> done.
>
> So if we added VM_GROWSDOWN to those early bits in general, the bit
> would then be cleared even when that wasn't the intent.
>
> Yes, yes, we could change the VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP logic to only
> clear some of the bits in the end, but the end result would be
> practically the same: we'd still have to do different things for
> grows-up vs grows-down cases, so the difference might as well be here
> in the VM_STACK_EARLY bit.
>
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists