From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:49:02 +0100
Subject: [PATCHv2] ARM64:Fix MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ
In-Reply-To: <mvma8rw8b9j.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
References: <1444109743-8561-1-git-send-email-manjeet.p@samsung.com>
 <5022096.8QRzW0l3EJ@wuerfel>
 <20151006103128.GN6281@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5340366.WTVksOGb0G@wuerfel> <mvmh9m48dpa.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
 <20151006113328.GP6281@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <mvma8rw8b9j.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
Message-ID: <20151006124902.GQ6281@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
> >> 
> >> > I think it makes sense to stick with the traditional definition
> >> > of MINSIGSTKSZ == "the minimum amount that you will always need,
> >> > add whatever you require yourself" and SIGSTKSZ == "Should be
> >> > enough for a couple of function calls".
> >> 
> >> The python3 testsuite wants to put two signal frames in a SIGSTKSZ
> >> stack.
> >
> > Whether it's valid to expect SIGSTKSZ to be big enough for that is
> > debatable.
> 
> This is tracked in <https://bugs.python.org/issue22503>.

Fair enough...

Cheers
---Dave