On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> wrote: >> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:05:41 -0500 (EST) >> From: Ted Unangst <[email protected]> >> >> reminder that "i tested this and it works" responses are more helpful than >> "yo this is awesome" responses. :) > > Unless Theo withdraws hos objection to decoupling MAXDSIZ and BRKSIZ, > there isn't much point in testing this :(.
I'm not aware of any objection other than "this needs testing on more than i386". >> Index: arch/i386/include/vmparam.h >> =================================================================== >> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/i386/include/vmparam.h,v >> retrieving revision 1.43 >> diff -u -r1.43 vmparam.h >> --- arch/i386/include/vmparam.h 16 Jun 2009 16:42:41 -0000 1.43 >> +++ arch/i386/include/vmparam.h 30 Jun 2010 02:17:34 -0000 >> @@ -63,7 +63,10 @@ >> #define DFLDSIZ (64*1024*1024) /* initial data size limit */ >> #endif >> #ifndef MAXDSIZ >> -#define MAXDSIZ (1024*1024*1024) /* max data size */ >> +#define MAXDSIZ (2U*1024*1024*1024 - 4096) /* max data size */ > > what's the reason for the - 4096 here? I am worried about signed bugs. I didn't find any, but I do not want the the maxdsiz to end up in a signed int and turn negative (possibly in some crappy app code). it's more paranoia than any justified reason.
