lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases
    On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 01:36 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    >> We can easily do a "rolling upgrade" by adding new versions of the
    >> system calls, giving glibc and apps grace periods to adjust to them,
    >> and nuking the old versions in a few years.

    On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:45AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > but for 1: do we care? it is being more tolerant than allowed by a
    > standard. Those who care can easily add the test in the userspace
    > wrapper
    > for 2: we again are more tolerant and dtrt; again. And again userspace
    > wrapper can impose an additional restriction if it wants
    > 3 is more nasty and needs thinking; we could consider a fix inside the
    > kernel that actually does wait long enough
    > I don't see a valid reason to restrict/reject input that is accepted now
    > and dealt with reasonably because some standard says so (if you design a
    > new api, following the standard is nice of course). I don't see "doesn't
    > reject a condition that can reasonable be dealt with" as a good reason
    > to go double ABI at all.

    These are probably better reasons against fiddling with ABI shifts and
    against starting 2.7 for its sake than I could come up with. Thanks.

    -- wli
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.022 / U:4.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site