Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:59:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:59:16 -0400 Received: from to-velocet.redhat.com ([216.138.202.10]:500 "EHLO touchme.toronto.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:57:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:00:40 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Roman Zippel , David Woodhouse , David Howells , alan@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: manipulating sigmask from filesystems and drivers Message-ID: <20020802120040.A25119@redhat.com> References:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:39:34AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 891 Lines: 19 On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:39:34AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We already do this right, and there is no reason to _break_ the fact that > we do it right. Can you come up with a _single_ reason for why we should > break existing standardized binary interfaces? Personally, I think that uninterruptible file io is good, but there needs to be an upper limit to the maximum size of the io. As it stands today, someone can do a single multigigabyte read or write that is completely uninterruptible (even to kill -9), but could take a minute or more to complete. -ben -- "You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier." - 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/