From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S264154AbUG2FNg@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S264154AbUG2FNg (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:13:36 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264238AbUG2FNg
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:13:36 -0400
Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:12248 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264154AbUG2FNe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:13:34 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:09:00 +1000
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
Cc: "Jeffrey E. Hundstad" <jeffrey.hundstad@mnsu.edu>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Steve Lord <lord@xfs.org>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com,
       xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
       Cahya Wirawan <cwirawan@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n
Message-ID: <20040729060900.GA1946@frodo>
References: <20040720114418.GH21918@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> <40FD0A61.1040503@xfs.org> <40FD2E99.20707@mnsu.edu> <20040720195012.GN14733@fs.tum.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040720195012.GN14733@fs.tum.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> The patch below does:
> 
> 1. let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL
> Rationale:
> 4Kb stacks on i386 are the future. But currently this option might still 
> cause problems in some areas of the kernel. OTOH, 4Kb stacks isn't a big 
> gain for most people.
> 2.6 is a stable kernel series, and 4KSTACKS=n is the safe choice.
> Once all issues with 4KSTACKS=y are resolved this can be reverted.

Seems fine.

> 2. let XFS depend on (4KSTACKS=n || BROKEN)
> Rationale:
> Mark Loy said:
>   Don't use 4K stacks and XFS.

Who is Mark Loy?  (and what does he know about XFS?)

> Mark this combination as BROKEN until XFS is fixed.

This part is not useful.  We want to hear about problems
that people hit with 4K stacks so we can try to address
them, and it mostly works as is.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan