From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 2/2] UML - Fix kernel stack size on x86_64
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:03:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070606110314.c64f8234.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070606151134.GA5972@c2.user-mode-linux.org>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:11:34 -0400 Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:20:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > If you do
> >
> > - int "Kernel stack size order"
> > + int
> >
> > then this rule will no longer be offered to the user and `make oldconfig'
> > (actually anythingconfig) will override whatever happens to be in .config
> > for KERNEL_STACK_ORDER.
>
> You're saying that making an option user-visible changes whether
> *config overrides .config? That's non-intuitive.
Yeah, I thought so. I discovered it by comparing the behaviour of your
patch against the behaviour of CONFIG_BASE_SMALL, fiddling around and
then saying "wtf".
> > I'm not sure if that's actually what you want, but if the current situation
> > is that a random CONFIG_KERNEL_STACK_ORDER=0 left over in .config will
> > break the kernel at runtime then I think something sterner than editing
> > defconfig is needed?
>
> That's a good point, but I think I do want it user-visible. If
> someone sees someething I suspect to be a stack overflow, I'd like to
> be able to tell them to bump KERNEL_STACK_ORDER and see if the problem
> goes away.
>
> As for something sterner, it turns out that Kbuild provides some
> support for this. So, drop the previous patch in favor of this one:
>
> Force KERNEL_STACK_ORDER to be at least 1 on UML/x86_64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@linux.intel.com>
> --
> arch/um/Kconfig | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21-mm/arch/um/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21-mm.orig/arch/um/Kconfig 2007-06-06 09:28:13.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.21-mm/arch/um/Kconfig 2007-06-06 11:08:49.000000000 -0400
> @@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ config HIGHMEM
> config KERNEL_STACK_ORDER
> int "Kernel stack size order"
> default 1 if 64BIT
> + range 1 10 if 64BIT
> default 0 if !64BIT
> help
> This option determines the size of UML kernel stacks. They will
heh, fair enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] UML - Fix kernel stack size on x86_64
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:03:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070606110314.c64f8234.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070606151134.GA5972@c2.user-mode-linux.org>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:11:34 -0400 Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:20:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > If you do
> >
> > - int "Kernel stack size order"
> > + int
> >
> > then this rule will no longer be offered to the user and `make oldconfig'
> > (actually anythingconfig) will override whatever happens to be in .config
> > for KERNEL_STACK_ORDER.
>
> You're saying that making an option user-visible changes whether
> *config overrides .config? That's non-intuitive.
Yeah, I thought so. I discovered it by comparing the behaviour of your
patch against the behaviour of CONFIG_BASE_SMALL, fiddling around and
then saying "wtf".
> > I'm not sure if that's actually what you want, but if the current situation
> > is that a random CONFIG_KERNEL_STACK_ORDER=0 left over in .config will
> > break the kernel at runtime then I think something sterner than editing
> > defconfig is needed?
>
> That's a good point, but I think I do want it user-visible. If
> someone sees someething I suspect to be a stack overflow, I'd like to
> be able to tell them to bump KERNEL_STACK_ORDER and see if the problem
> goes away.
>
> As for something sterner, it turns out that Kbuild provides some
> support for this. So, drop the previous patch in favor of this one:
>
> Force KERNEL_STACK_ORDER to be at least 1 on UML/x86_64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@linux.intel.com>
> --
> arch/um/Kconfig | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21-mm/arch/um/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21-mm.orig/arch/um/Kconfig 2007-06-06 09:28:13.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.21-mm/arch/um/Kconfig 2007-06-06 11:08:49.000000000 -0400
> @@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ config HIGHMEM
> config KERNEL_STACK_ORDER
> int "Kernel stack size order"
> default 1 if 64BIT
> + range 1 10 if 64BIT
> default 0 if !64BIT
> help
> This option determines the size of UML kernel stacks. They will
heh, fair enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-06 18:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-05 20:50 [uml-devel] [PATCH 2/2] UML - Fix kernel stack size on x86_64 Jeff Dike
2007-06-05 20:50 ` Jeff Dike
2007-06-06 0:00 ` [uml-devel] " Andrew Morton
2007-06-06 0:00 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-06 0:37 ` [uml-devel] " Jeff Dike
2007-06-06 0:37 ` Jeff Dike
2007-06-06 1:20 ` [uml-devel] " Andrew Morton
2007-06-06 1:20 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-06 15:11 ` [uml-devel] " Jeff Dike
2007-06-06 15:11 ` Jeff Dike
2007-06-06 18:03 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-06-06 18:03 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070606110314.c64f8234.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.