From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:24:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130214212411.55788ec1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <511DAEA3.4080201@250bpm.com>
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:42:27 +0100 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com> wrote:
> > This is a non-back-compatible userspace interface change. A procfs
> > file which previously displayed
> >
> > eventfd-count: nnnn
> >
> > can now also display
> >
> > eventfd-mask: nnnn
> >
> > So existing userspace could misbehave.
> >
> > Please fully describe the proposed interface change in the changelog.
> > That description should include the full pathname of the procfs file
> > and example before-and-after output and a discussion of whether and why
> > the risk to existing userspace is acceptable.
>
> I am not sure what the policy is here. Is not printing out the state of
> the object acceptable way to maintain backward compatibility? If not so,
> does new type of object require new procfs file, which, AFAIU, is the
> only way to retain full backward compatibility?
Adding a new file is the only way I can think of to preserve the API.
But from Andy's comment is sounds like we don't have to worry a lot
about back-compatibility.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-15 5:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-08 8:11 [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag Martin Sustrik
2013-02-14 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
2013-02-14 23:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-02-15 3:42 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-02-15 5:24 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-02-15 17:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-02-15 18:37 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-02-18 8:54 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-02-18 11:57 ` Martin Sustrik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-09-16 6:27 [PATCH v2 0/1] Generalize poll events from eventfd Damian Hobson-Garcia
[not found] ` <1442384836-13045-1-git-send-email-dhobsong-AlSX/UN32fvPDbFq/vQRIQ@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-16 6:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag Damian Hobson-Garcia
2015-09-16 6:51 ` Martin Sustrik
2015-09-16 7:43 ` Damian Hobson-Garcia
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130214212411.55788ec1.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=handai.szj@taobao.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=sustrik@250bpm.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).