Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:27:32 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: manipulating sigmask from filesystems and drivers |
| |
Hi
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Binary compatibility is important. As is the larger issue of generic UNIX > compatibility. You had better have some really strong arguments for why > you would think I'd be willing to break compatibility. So far you have had > _no_ arguments for the question "Why?".
I never asked for breaking binary compatibility. On the other hand I can give you an example, why I'd like to have a choice. I expect from a good application that it recovers gracefully from failures, so if I'm saving a file and the server goes down, I would really, really like it if something happened when I push that stop button or I press Esc and the application should offer me the possibility to save the file somewhere else.
To implement this I would suggest using file flags instead of new task flags:
O_ATOMIC O_NONBLOCK O_SIGNALINT O_KILLINT O_DONT_BOTHER_ME
The first one might be useful for aio, it wants something like that already anyway. This way applications had a choice, how read/write should behave on signals.
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |