> On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:35:50AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
>> On 8/3/15 8:03 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>>> For this change I don't want to get into fixing the thread0 stack size,
>>>> which can be done later, just
>>>> to provide a reasonable warning to the user that smaller values could
>>>> cause a panic.
>>> Hmm, is it limited to the thread0 only ?  I.e., would only increasing
>>> the initial thread stack size be enough to boot the kernel ?  The zfs
>>> threads do request larger stack size, I know this.
>>> 
>>> Can somebody test the following patch in the i386 configuration which
>>> does not boot ?
>> 
>> I think this is a reasonable thing to do. Thread0 (and proc0) are special.
>> I don't see why giving it a specially sized stack would be a problem.
> 
> This is always do for ARM.
> May be need increase stack size for Thread0 on ARM too?
Seems reasonable. There should be a MI way of doing this, but all the code and 
defines are buried in MD files, so each architecture needs some love to make 
this a reality.

Warner

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to