>> what's the actual problem with the fault handler if stack vm_map entries
>> are merged with non-stack ones?  it would seem better to just remove
>> assumptions about vm_map layout from the fault-handler code, then
>> merging stack and non-stack entries would be fine.  I'd rather not
>> special-case this if it's not necessary.
>
>If I'm understanding Andrew right, the difference is that stack mappings
>have different growth semanitcs from non-stack mappings. The former (well
>the lowest one) can grow when the stack hits its bottom. The latter can
>only grow as a result of explicit system calls to map more memory. Thus if
>you access just below a mapping, you either want to grow it or return an
>error, depending on if it's a stack or not.
>
>This assumes I'm understanding Andrew right. :-)

you were understanding me right, insofar as what i thought i meant.
it turns out i was wrong anyway, so never mind.  :)

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."