Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases

[William Lee Irwin III]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/