From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: unconditionally enabled irq stacks From: Michael Ellerman To: Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: <20100603082426.GA6110@lst.de> References: <20100603082426.GA6110@lst.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ppjeqZgX/US0kV8KnW79" Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:39:41 +1000 Message-ID: <1275572381.32304.9.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-ppjeqZgX/US0kV8KnW79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:24 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Irq stacks provide an essential protection from stack overflows through > external interrupts, at the cost of two additionals stacks per CPU. >=20 > Enable them unconditionally to simplify the kernel build and prevent > people from accidentally disabling them. Since when did we worry about simplifying the kernel build? :) I'm thinking embedded folks might prefer the reduction in stack space, though I guess we'll let them speak for themselves. Perhaps it could depend on EMBEDDED? It's not like it's a lot of extra code. cheers --=-ppjeqZgX/US0kV8KnW79 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkwHsJoACgkQdSjSd0sB4dLvAgCgrml9tYUBhnyC2uC1QqfCzJ8V sjIAoIyIyDPyNsCP8ikXbyi/8A1DwB1b =Wclo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ppjeqZgX/US0kV8KnW79--