On 17/07/07, William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
For what it's worth, that sounds good to me - like something that we
would want merged.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
