On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:56:51 +0200
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The previous patch introduced very large kernel stack usage and a Makefile
> change to hide the warning about it.
>
> From what I can tell, a number of things went wrong here:
>
> - The BCH_MAX_T constant was set to the maximum value
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:56:51 +0200
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The previous patch introduced very large kernel stack usage and a Makefile
> change to hide the warning about it.
>
> From what I can tell, a number of things went wrong here:
>
> - The BCH_MAX_T constant was set to the maximum value
The previous patch introduced very large kernel stack usage and a Makefile
change to hide the warning about it.
>From what I can tell, a number of things went wrong here:
- The BCH_MAX_T constant was set to the maximum value for 'n',
not the maximum for 't', which is much smaller.
- The stack
The previous patch introduced very large kernel stack usage and a Makefile
change to hide the warning about it.
>From what I can tell, a number of things went wrong here:
- The BCH_MAX_T constant was set to the maximum value for 'n',
not the maximum for 't', which is much smaller.
- The stack
4 matches
Mail list logo