DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=subject:from:to
	:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id
	:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=TBZXIV
	ys1b9CTgRSM1ewn4pC7nJOVz1GGbALwOeGIlVFZOobF+gMz2K93YWciLmXKIS22e
	STIYiX3TamfeatyPpPfOVL833vjX/u81OXeyFAJqoNTJot/OcT96t6tmonTFIqS/
	WLYRrlwTnNq5ChaB6U+RD9IINOMXwyu9VYqOo=
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signalfd: fill in ssi_int for posix timers and message
 queues
From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, stable@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20100720211018.e586c7ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1278117528.21917.354.camel@localhost>
 <20100720154205.667e95aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <1279683859.3030.121.camel@localhost>
 <20100720211018.e586c7ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:39:37 -0500
Message-ID: <1279733977.3030.256.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1944
Lines: 42

On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 21:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:44:19 -0500 Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com> 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.

Yes, I misinterpreted your concern, sorry.  But I've never understood
Linux to make promises with respect to forward compatibility at the
system call layer.  Bug fixes[1] and features[2] that, like this patch,
break that compatibility seem to have gone in without raising this
issue.

Am I mistaken?  Or has there been a change in policy I've missed?


[1] "signalfd: fix for incorrect SI_QUEUE user data reporting" (0859ab5)

[2] "hugetlb: add MAP_HUGETLB for mmaping pseudo-anonymous huge page
regions" (4e52780)


--
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/