Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Light-weight dynamically extended stacks | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:57:45 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:40:06 EST, Patrick McLean said: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > This is not intended to be an automatic scheme. To use it, you must > > actually insert code into the troublesome codepaths, which will of > > course serve as a red flag for code review. > > > > It might be an idea to put in a #warn to make it an even bigger red > flag, and to really make people fix this rather than just ignore it > since it works with the dynamic stacks.
Stick a 'depends on CONFIG_BROKEN' on it? ;) [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |