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