From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262719AbVAKLSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:18:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262721AbVAKLSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:18:43 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:64268 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262719AbVAKLSl (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:18:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] 2.4.19-rc1 stack reduction patches From: Arjan van de Ven To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Badari Pulavarty , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20050111074949.GE18796@logos.cnet> References: <1105378550.4000.132.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <1105429144.3917.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20050111074949.GE18796@logos.cnet> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:18:31 +0100 Message-Id: <1105442311.3917.25.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 05:49 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:39:03AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 09:35 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > > > I re-worked all the applicable stack reduction patches for 2.4.19-rc1. > > > > is it really worth doing this sort of thing for 2.4 still? It's a matter > > of risk versus gain... not sure this sort of thing is still worth it in > > the deep-maintenance 2.4 tree > > Well it seems the s390 fellows are seeing stack overflows, which are serious > enough. Have you noticed that? well.. is anyone using 2.4.2X mainline on s390, or is ibm making their s390 customers use vendor kernels instead? (the people brave enough to not use those kernels might very well be using 2.6 by now) Just trying to get a feeling for who if anyone will benefit inclusion of such patches, because if that is "just about nobody" then they might well not be worth the risk.