On 03/08/2015 21:48, Warner Losh wrote:
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
In the mean time are people happier with
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3279 or should I just leave it using the
#define until someone has time to work on a full solution?
Regards
Steve
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
