Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:40:06 EST, Patrick McLean said:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > 
> > This is not intended to be an automatic scheme. To use it, you must
> > actually insert code into the troublesome codepaths, which will of
> > course serve as a red flag for code review.
> > 
> 
> It might be an idea to put in a #warn to make it an even bigger red 
> flag, and to really make people fix this rather than just ignore it 
> since it works with the dynamic stacks.

Stick a 'depends on CONFIG_BROKEN' on it? ;)

Attachment: pgpc9EGS9wLCo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• References:
  • Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
  • Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
  • Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
  • Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
    • From: Patrick McLean <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Linux 2.6.15-rc6
• Next by Date: 2.6.14-rt22 (and mainline): netstat -anop triggers excessive latencies
• Previous by thread: Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks
• Next by thread: [PATCH] powerpc: g5 thermal overtemp bug
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]