On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 23:12 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 22:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:52 PM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 22:43 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:18 PM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not too keen to do the version-check considering some LTS versions > > > > could > > > > just back-port those patches and the render the version-check > > > > incorrectly. > > > > > > I'm not following what the problem is. Do you mean distro versions gcc > > > with the compiler bugfix, or LTS kernel versions? > > > > > > > I mean distro versions of GCC where the version is still 8 but keep back- > > porting > > tons of patches. > > Ok, but in that case, checking the version would still be no worse > than your current patch, the only difference is that for users of a > fixed older gcc, the kernel would use more stack than it needs. > I am thinking about something it is probably best just waiting for those major distors to complete upgrading to GCC9 or back-porting those stack reduction patches first. Then, it is good time to tie up loose ends for those default stack sizes in all combinations.
