Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:33:58 +0200 > Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 8K stacks without IRQ stacks are not "safer" so I don't understand your >> > comment ? >> >> Ouch, see the reports about 4k stack crashes. I agree they're not >> safe w/o irq stacks (like on x86-64), but they're generally safer. > > Still don't follow. How is "exceeds stack space but less likely to be > noticed" safer. If there is a tree in the forest, is it as likely to fall as the three that's being chopped in front of our eyes? It is, because each tree will fall eventually, but you'd still not allow your kids to play on the tree being chopped, but you'd probably allow them to climb that other tree like all the other kids do. The same applies to the stack: We don't know if or when we'll see all possible interrupts fire and kill the 8K stack, but we know for sure the 8K stack has been climbed for years and there is an axe on that 4K stack. So where do you send the users to play? -- What's worse than a Male Chauvinist Pig? A woman that won't do what she's told. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
