Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751328Ab0GUELB (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:11:01 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:47654 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875Ab0GUELA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:11:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:10:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Nathan Lynch Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Davide Libenzi , stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] signalfd: fill in ssi_int for posix timers and message queues Message-Id: <20100720211018.e586c7ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1279683859.3030.121.camel@localhost> References: <1278117528.21917.354.camel@localhost> <20100720154205.667e95aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1279683859.3030.121.camel@localhost> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1465 Lines: 28 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:44:19 -0500 Nathan Lynch wrote: > > So it's not 100% obvious that this change is desirable. Does the > > functionality which this patch adds justify the introduction of these > > problems? > > I think the change is desirable in that no user of the interface could > reasonably expect the current behavior with respect to the ssi_int > field, and that it reconciles signalfd's behavior with its design > intentions. On the other hand, I noticed this discrepancy only because > I was cribbing signalfd's data structures for checkpoint/restart, not > because I am aware of any application that is affected, nor was I able > to find one using Google's code search. It would be highly speculative > of me to say that no application depends on the current behavior, but it > is difficult to imagine a correctly functioning application that depends > on it. It's not a matter of a current application depending on current behaviour! The problem is that an application written in 2018 which depends on the _new_ behaviour will not work on 2.6.34. It wouldn't be the worst thing we've ever done to our long-suffering users, but it is a permanent cost of having screwed things up :( -- 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/