From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hancock.sc.steeleye.com (nat9.steeleye.com [65.114.3.137]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B224840 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:47:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mulgrave-w.il.steeleye.com (il-ppp.sc.steeleye.com [172.17.6.240]) by hancock.sc.steeleye.com (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id h6EJlFI15031; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:47:15 -0400 Subject: RE: [parisc-linux] [PATCH] fix arbitrary limits on stack size From: James Bottomley To: Joel Soete Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org In-Reply-To: <3F0BEA8300001164@ocpmta1.freegates.net> References: <3F0BEA8300001164@ocpmta1.freegates.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: 14 Jul 2003 14:47:14 -0500 Message-Id: <1058212036.2966.13.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 05:48, Joel Soete wrote: > I don' t remember the historical reason of this choice but do you think it > is possible to back-port it into 2.4 (it will facilitate so much the merge > with upstream?) Well, I suppose, theoretically. However, before we consider backporting, what I really need is for people to test it. Downward growing mappings may cause application issues: If you map to an unspecified address, you may be surprised to discover that you can't expand the mapping upwards. Of course, no application should ever depend on being able to expand unspecified maps in either direction, but you never know... James