From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20586CA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2698208C0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726245AbfJ1LI3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:08:29 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:39680 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726124AbfJ1LI2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:08:28 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.92.2) (envelope-from ) id 1iP2si-0001fM-5v; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: pull-request: mac80211-next 2019-07-31 From: Johannes Berg To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: David Miller , Networking , linux-wireless , John Crispin Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:08:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20190731155057.23035-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <2f64367daad256b1f1999797786763fa8091faa1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 11:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > Why do you say 32-bit btw, it should be *bigger* on 64-bit, but I didn't > > see this ... hmm. > > That is correct. For historic reasons, both the total amount of stack space > per thread and the warning limit on 64 bit are twice the amount that we > have on 32-bit kernels, so even though the problem is more serious on > 64-bit architectures, we do not see a warning about it because we remain > well under the warning limit. Hmm, but I have: CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=1024 in my compilation? Maybe I do in fact have merging of the storage space, and you don't? I see another copy of it that shouldn't be merged ("bss_elems"), but ... Hmm. johannes