Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks

Kyle Moffett
2005-12-16T15:49:24Z

On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:35, Diego Calleja wrote:
> I know, but there's too much resistance to the "pure" 4kb patch.

I have yet to see any resistance to the 4Kb patch this time around
that was not "*whine* don't break my ndiswrapper plz". There are
extremely few remaining 4kb stack bugs, and 4k stacks have a sizeable
list of technical advantages.

> The 8 KB patch does the same thing (enables 4kb stacks)

The point is to force it in -mm so most people can't just disable it
because it fixes their problem. We want 8k stacks to go away, and
the only way to get out the last issues before sending to mainline is
by forcing it in -mm.

> and at the same time the 8kb groupies can't flamewar you for it

This matter how?

> it covers akpm's concerns

I get the impression that they are already sufficiently addressed,
although Andrew should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong :-D.

> it puts some pressure on the ndiswrapper guys

And removing 8kb all-together doesn't do this?

> and leaves time for the broadcom driver developers to finish, merge
> and push to the distributions their driver

It's working partially now. This is the time when we should really
try to force ndiswrapper junkies over to the driver to get it tested
and bugfixed for inclusion.

> The 8kb config option can be removed in the future when we're sure
> that it's 100% safe (neil brown's patch isn''t a good sign). It
> makes every happy IMO ;)

We're not trying to get it removed from mainline (yet), just from -
mm, which has never been anywhere close to 100% safe _anyways_. If
it breaks lots of things horribly, it will get reverted and
development will continue as normal, but that's probably not going to
be the case.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian Kernighan