From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:31:25 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard To: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit Message-ID: <20100208053125.GN32246@kryten> References: <20100208140323.FB52.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100208051104.GL32246@kryten> <20100208141716.FB55.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100208141716.FB55.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Michael Neuling , stable@kernel.org, aeb@cwi.nl, James Morris , miltonm@bga.com, Oleg Nesterov , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Alexander Viro , WANG Cong , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Serge Hallyn , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, > I didn't discuss which behavior is better. Michael said he want to apply > his patch to 2.6.32 & 2.6.33. stable tree never accept the breaking > compatibility patch. > > Your answer doesn't explain why can't we wait it until next merge window. > > > btw, personally, I like page size indepent stack size. but I'm not sure > why making stack size independency is related to bug fix. OK sorry, I misunderstood your initial mail. I agree fixing the bit that regressed in 2.6.32 is the most important thing. The difference in page size is clearly wrong but since it isn't a regression we could probably live with it until 2.6.34 Anton