Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:41:43AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 12:51:24 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > > add whatever you require

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:41:43AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 12:51:24 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > > add whatever you require

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 12:51:24 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > enough for a couple of function calls".

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

>> This looks correct now. A few more points though: >> >> * My first thought would have been to do this by first defining the >> two symbols before the #include, and then adding an #ifdef in >> the generic file. Both approaches work though, any other opinions >> on this? >That's what I

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 12:51:24 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > enough for a couple of function calls".

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

>> This looks correct now. A few more points though: >> >> * My first thought would have been to do this by first defining the >> two symbols before the #include, and then adding an #ifdef in >> the generic file. Both approaches work though, any other opinions >> on this? >That's what I

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Dave Martin writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Arnd Bergmann writes: > >> > >> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > >> > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

Dave Martin writes: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Arnd Bergmann writes: >> >> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition >> > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, >> > add whatever you require yourself"

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Arnd Bergmann writes: > > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > >

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:31:34 Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > * Can you explain in the changelog how the numbers were decided? > > > I don't see any other

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

Arnd Bergmann writes: > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > enough for a couple of function calls". The python3 testsuite wants to put

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:31:34 Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > * Can you explain in the changelog how the numbers were decided? > > I don't see any other architecture using 5kb and cannot see why > > it has to be this value rather

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > > This patch fixes this issue. > > > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase:

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:05:43AM +0530, Manjeet Pawar wrote: > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > This patch fixes this issue. > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase: sigaltstack02.c). > Testcase failed when sigaltstack() called with stack size

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > > This patch fixes this issue. > > > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase:

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > This patch fixes this issue. > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase: sigaltstack02.c). > Testcase failed when sigaltstack() called with stack size

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > This patch fixes this issue. > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase: sigaltstack02.c). > Testcase failed when sigaltstack() called with stack size

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > > This patch fixes this issue. > > > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase:

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:05:43AM +0530, Manjeet Pawar wrote: > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > This patch fixes this issue. > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase: sigaltstack02.c). > Testcase failed when sigaltstack() called with stack size

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:43 Manjeet Pawar wrote: > > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > > This patch fixes this issue. > > > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase:

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:31:34 Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > * Can you explain in the changelog how the numbers were decided? > > I don't see any other architecture using 5kb and cannot see why > > it has to be this value rather

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

Arnd Bergmann writes: > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be > enough for a couple of function calls". The python3

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

Dave Martin writes: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Arnd Bergmann writes: >> >> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition >> > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, >> >

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Arnd Bergmann writes: > > > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition > > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need, > > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ ==

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Dave Martin writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Arnd Bergmann writes: > >> > >> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition

Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:31:34 Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > * Can you explain in the changelog how the numbers were decided? > > > I don't see any other