Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755418Ab0LNIQd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 03:16:33 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:37576 "EHLO mail-bw0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754487Ab0LNIQc (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 03:16:32 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=WEOykIN/NwOSGxo7Hld5wdJniNACMPTl9mFCEhyqroRwqkhwYgVEFt86+YtWe0BxS9 ZwM33yKjAe7e2zwY9D3/vAB+pZi4fkoxlXfgp1xA5A4ZAVepwauZLNmP+Az0uFfNYsHy H09ZgQ+YKMpS8d/YcI2AZp3oJUtOQG1IrVjbE= Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:16:20 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Balbir Singh Cc: Brian Rogers , Jeff Mahoney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guillaume Chazarain , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [patch] delayacct: fix iotop on x86_64 Message-ID: <20101214081620.GK1620@bicker> Mail-Followup-To: Dan Carpenter , Balbir Singh , Brian Rogers , Jeff Mahoney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guillaume Chazarain , akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <20101213113745.GE1620@bicker> <20101213125709.GB14178@balbir.in.ibm.com> <4D0639B2.4060903@suse.com> <4D068869.7040305@xyzw.org> <20101213212253.GI1620@bicker> <20101214070243.GJ1620@bicker> <20101214080239.GC14178@balbir.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101214080239.GC14178@balbir.in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1114 Lines: 25 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 01:32:39PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > I would rather abstract this better and I'd be apprehensive about the > fix if iotop was at fault to begin with, I would rather fix iotop. > IOW, are we fixing what iotop got wrong? Isn't it easier to backport > the correct behaviour in iotop. I understand we broke the ABI, but > user space can still live. > The iotop people are definitely at fault and we should throw salmon at the developers next time when we see them at a conference. But in the end, it's not really a matter of assigning blame to things. It's just annoying for users if the program stops working and you have to google to figure out why the new kernel it broke iotop. It's simple enough to paper over the bug for now, then fix it properly in a couple years when everyone has upgraded their user space. regards, dan carpenter -- 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/