From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Valentin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] enable hires timer to timeout datagram socket Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20170908185521.GA12340@u40b0340c692b58f6553c.ant.amazon.com> References: <20170908170409.GA10020@u40b0340c692b58f6553c.ant.amazon.com> <20170908.101657.2131282706895004921.davem@davemloft.net> <1504891402.32080.5.camel@infradead.org> <20170908.102645.1086537961399780085.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: , , , , , , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170908.102645.1086537961399780085.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:26:45AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: David Woodhouse > Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:23:22 +0100 > > > I don't know that anyone's ever tried saying "show me the chapter and > > verse of the documentation" > > Do you know why I brought this up? Because the person I am replying > to told me that the syscall documentation should have suggested this > or that. > > That's why. :-) My intention was for sure not to upset anybody. Just to reiterate, the point of patch is simple, there was a change in behavior in the system call from one kernel version to the other. As I mentioned, I agree that the userspace could use other means to achieve the same, but still the system call behavior has changed. > > So let's concentrate on the other aspects of my reply, ok? I agree. I would prefer to understand here what is the technical reason not to accept these patches other than "use other system calls". -- All the best, Eduardo Valentin