From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Pau Monne Subject: Re: [PATCH] xs: set read_thread stacksize Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4FE2F704.1070608@citrix.com> References: <0cf61ed6ce86de2b61db.1338307000@drall.uk.xensource.com> <201205300856.15605.simon.rowe@eu.citrix.com> <1338370815.31698.26.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <201205301310.09243.simon.rowe@eu.citrix.com> <1338449525.7864.14.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4FE2E4DC.5030500@citrix.com> <1340270320.21872.31.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4FE2EBD9.4040101@citrix.com> <1340273928.21872.62.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1340273928.21872.62.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Ian Jackson , Simon Rowe , David Vrabel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell wrote: > Using PTHREAD_STACK_MIN sounds like a good idea, since this patch is in > can you send an incremental update? You could do max(PTHREAD_STACK_MIN, > 16*1204) perhaps? If we are trying to reduce stack as much as possible shouldn't we use PTHREAD_STACK_MIN directly?