Dave Jones wrote on Wednesday 25 May 2005 16:54: > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 04:13:50PM -0700, David Kewley wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 May 2005 16:07, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:59:16PM -0700, David Kewley wrote: > > > > Thanks *very* much, Dave -- it's good to hear this from someone > > > > highly involved in the kernel. I'll take your advice. > > > > > > > > I am using UFS and XFS in RHEL4 by rebuilding the kernel with > > > > those filesystems enabled. The filesystems appear to work fine; I > > > > know others are also using XFS in RHEL4. > > > > > > beware: XFS can use *lots* of stack space in certain conditions, > > > which really doesn't play too nicely with the 4KB stack size. > > > > Thanks, and acknowledged. I looked into 4k vs 8k stacks before I > > started using XFS on RHEL4. My conclusion was that I'm safe because I > > have x86_64, which has 8k stacks. Is that reasonable, or are stack > > items twice as big on 64- as on 32-bit, so that you still run a risk > > with 8k stacks on 64-bit? > > Correct, sizeof(long) and sizeof(pointer) are doubled, so you're still at > risk of an overflow. Thanks again, Dave. I've started a conversation on the linux XFS list, because I know this isn't RH's problem. David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
