On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:00:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch was already sent on:Sigh. I saw the volume of email last time and though "gee, glad I wasn't
- 11 Dec 2005
- 5 Dec 2005
- 30 Nov 2005
- 23 Nov 2005
- 14 Nov 2005
cc'ed on that lot".
If you substract the "this breaks my binary-only M$ Windows driver" emails there's not much volume left.
Supporting 8k stacks is a small amount of code and nobody has seen a need
to make changes in there for quite a long time. So there's little cost to
keeping the existing code.
And the existing code is useful:
a) people can enable it to confirm that their weird crash was due to a
stack overflow.
b) If I was going to put together a maximally-stable kernel for a
complex server machine, I'd select 8k stacks. We're still just too
squeezy, and we've had too many relatively-recent overflows, and there
are still some really deep callpaths in there.
a1) People turn off 4k stacks and never report the problem / noone really debugs and fixes the reported problem.
Me threatening people with enabling 4k stacks for everyone already resulted in several fixes.
An how many weird crashes with _different_ causes have you seen?
It could be that there are only _very_ few problems that noone really debugs brcause disabling 4k stacks fixes the issue.
cu
Adrian