On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:21:01AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Even with this patch, the overflow is 808 bytes (without the patch
> > it's 1232 bytes).
> 
> I was mulling over some other changes that would have saved another 256 bytes, 
> but those don't look like they would help.  Try the patch below.  It 
> essentially gives up and lets the stack occupy half of the lower page.

Well, that sweeps the problem under the carpet enough to make progress...
 
> Also, could you look at the stack pointer at each frame, to see if you are 
> encountering any stack hogs in the generic kernel?  In a different situation, 
> I found devfs putting a 3K structure on the stack.

OK, I'll look into it.

        J

PGP signature

Reply via email to