On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:30:30AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > 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?
Checking by #ifdef you check only parametr at time of building zfs.ko, checking variable you check actual value. May be check thread stack best if only for current tread. _______________________________________________ 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"
