Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:29:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu>, Weiguang SHI <weiguang_shi@hotmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using syscalls in a module (stack problem ?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107241227410.19434-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200107232045.f6NKjX201758@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Now that interrupts are threads we probably don't need 2 pages any more as each interrupt should get it's own u-area and stack to use. Previously you had to take into account the worst-case nested interrupt. On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > Make sense. But there are other things in the UPAGES. > > Yes; in reality you have about 7k. > > It's plenty of space for a deep call stack, just not for large locals. > > -- > ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his > rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want > to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force > people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] > V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107241227410.19434-100000>