[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Possibly offtopic : Binary only driver



On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 21:10 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:

> > You are confused. They 4K stack merely showed they were already broken.
> 
> Of course in this instance "broken" is defined as "uses more stack than
> the amount we've decided isn't broken". I understand the reasoning
> behind the choice of 4k so I won't claim it's arbitrary, even though the
> stacks could be larger. Windows uses 12k stacks does it not?
> 
> I guess we have different definitions of broken. 

I believe that the correct way to read this is, in fact, that there in
_no guarantee whatsoever_ that there is more than 4K stack space
available in a "8K stack" kernel, since the IRQ stacks aren't separate
in that case. So it's just a bit more hit-or-miss whether you actually
get the oopses...

OK, sure you could use some other stack size, but the drivers that oops
with 4K stacks have never been safe. Since they are linux drivers that
is a bug.

Now, if you're actually talking about ndiswrapper, that's a whole
different can of worms since you're trying to wedge something written to
work in Windows into the Linux kernel. Well, good luck with that.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

/Per

-- 
Per Bjornsson <perbj stanford edu>
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]