From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756731AbYEENmp (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:42:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752431AbYEENmg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:42:36 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]:26438 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752707AbYEENmf (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:42:35 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=hjdytrls39XRQoem6hEWgdKnm3GCP4zF0LQccs62LGtangpFKaDdqiQeVsWaXMXGwrCWnSkmUD81Kzxj7lOLKQS/7/st/RD6pfZVDvUxvO7oTy+20Rg3PlFA4p1H7ebBDh5XM7uOtsCXJAuPduH9jLnbImPm7WQd4201ZbqVP5A= Message-ID: <84144f020805050642p1e0ca224r9c1a92e899fddfe3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:42:24 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Execute stack overflow warning on interrupt stack II Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, sandeen@sandeen.net In-Reply-To: <481F0BCD.8020306@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080502091806.GA26062@basil.nowhere.org> <20080502094543.GA11114@basil.nowhere.org> <481EDEC5.10000@firstfloor.org> <481F0BCD.8020306@firstfloor.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4478166ef056db86 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andi, On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Err, it checks the process stack when 4KSTACKS=n > > Ok then please add the two changes if you feel strongly about that > (to the latest version I sent). > > You always edit my patches anyways (usually driving me crazy when I have > dependent patches because nothing applies anymore when all the variables > got renamed like you often do) so I don't see any reason why you can't > do that here. Heh, do you mean to say that all this time I should have just asked Andrew to fix all the patches I've submitted rather take the trouble to do that myself after the review? ;-)