Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:35:50 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286223 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <55BFC296.5050402@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150803120359.GC2072@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201508030934.t739YAkT026668@repo.freebsd.org> <20150803094730.GA24698@zxy.spb.ru> <55BF431E.3020601@freebsd.org> <2757800.HIDNx1G49O@overcee.wemm.org> <20150803111942.GB2072@kib.kiev.ua> <55BF557B.60009@multiplay.co.uk> <20150803120359.GC2072@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/3/15 8:03 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: >> For this change I don't want to get into fixing the thread0 stack size, >> which can be done later, just >> to provide a reasonable warning to the user that smaller values could >> cause a panic. > Hmm, is it limited to the thread0 only ? I.e., would only increasing > the initial thread stack size be enough to boot the kernel ? The zfs > threads do request larger stack size, I know this. > > Can somebody test the following patch in the i386 configuration which > does not boot ? I think this is a reasonable thing to do. Thread0 (and proc0) are special. I don't see why giving it a specially sized stack would be a problem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55BFC296.5050402>