Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753024AbZGXQfZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:35:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752469AbZGXQfZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:35:25 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:44826 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751852AbZGXQfY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:35:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Alan Cox cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ray Lee , LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Regression] kdesu broken In-Reply-To: <20090724164058.21a054e6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <200907240145.31935.rjw@sisk.pl> <2c0942db0907231721q124dc8f9mdbe64ed33c69ffbf@mail.gmail.com> <200907241721.45943.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090724164058.21a054e6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1408 Lines: 39 On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:21:45 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Friday 24 July 2009, Ray Lee wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > A recent kernel change broke kdesu (from KDE 4.2) on my test boxes. ISTR a > > > > discussion about that, but I can't find it right now. Any clues? > > > > > > See the thread starting here: ("possible regression with pty.c commit") > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/11/125 > > > > Thanks for the pointer. > > > > Well, I thought we were expected to avoid breaking existing user space, even > > if that were buggy etc. > > I don't know where you got that idea from. Avoiding breaking user space > unneccessarily is good but if its buggy you often can't do anything about > it. Alan, he got that idea from me. We don't do regressions. If user space depended on old behavior, we don't change behavior. And regardless of that, I do not think EIO is the right thing to return at all. If the other side of a pty went away, return 0 and possibly send a HUP, or whatever. What did we do before? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/