On 5/11/23 11:50 AM, Manjunath S Matti wrote:
>
> On 09/05/23 11:03 pm, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> Manjunath S Matti <mmatti@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> Am I missing some thing, please help me understand the file
>> No. You're right.
>> The issue I hypothesized can't happen.
> Thanks for confirming.

The patch looks good.

>>> I will definitely add a testcases just to check what value are we 
>>> getting
>>>
>>> from the kernel.
>> I'm sorry, I'm not sure this test is needed anymore.
>> While it doesn't hurt to have it, it would add little value.
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
> I have one last thing that I fail to understand, in x86
>
> file: sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/sigstksz.h
>
>  26 /* Default stack size for a signal handler: sysconf 
> (SC_SIGSTKSZ).  */
>  27 # undef SIGSTKSZ
>  28 # define SIGSTKSZ sysconf (_SC_SIGSTKSZ)
>  29
>  30 /* Minimum stack size for a signal handler: SIGSTKSZ.  */
>  31 # undef MINSIGSTKSZ
>  32 # define MINSIGSTKSZ SIGSTKSZ
>
> line number 32, both MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ are intentionally set to 
> the same value.
>
> Do you know why, I just wanted to know the reason behind this.

This was added by commit 6c57d320484988e87e446e2e60ce42816bf51d53.

@H.J. Lu Do you have any comments on this question?

>
> Thank you
>
>