On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:38:39PM +0100, Matthias Drochner wrote: > > dyoung%pobox.com@localhost said: > > was setting pba_sub = 255 causing material problems for someone, or > > are you concerned that lossage will eventually occur on certain > > server-class machines? > > No, this wasn't causing damage. I was tracking another problem which > was incidentally triggered by another of your changes -- increased > stack use lead to stack overflow on amd64 with a deep PCI hierarchy > (a MicroTCA system). Tell me more about this. > Just stumbled over this. But it is obviously wrong. If you think > it should be in the public tree there should be at least a big fat > comment telling that it is for testing purposes and nothing uses > it really and it will be removed before it can cause damage. It does belong in the public tree. Please revert the reversion. I will add a big, fat comment. Dave -- David Young dyoung%pobox.com@localhost Urbana, IL (217) 721-9981