On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:50:18 +0800 Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Eric W. Biederman > <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: > > > > > > On August 24, 2015 6:57:57 PM MDT, Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>An application from HuaWei which works fine on 2.6 encounters this > >>issue on 3.0 or later kernel. > > > > My sympathies. Being stuck with a 3rd party application you can barely > > talk about that has been broken for 5years and no one reported it. > > > > Ordinarily we would fix a regression like this. As it has been 5years the > > challenge now is how do we tell if there are applications that depend on > > the current behavior. > > > > Before we can change the behavior back we need a convincing argument that > > we won't cause a regression in another application by making the change. > > > > I do not see how such an argument can be made. So you have my sympathies > > but I do not see how we can help you. > We should consider this patch basing on my following arguments. > 1 Different version kernel should keep consistent on this behavior. The thing is, the above argument is against the patch. The behavior changed 2 years ago, and nobody noticed. Changing it back only causes more inconsistent behavior. > 2 This writting behavior on proc file should be same with writting on > regular file as possible as we can. Writing to a proc file causes kernel actions. Writing to a regular file just saves data. That's not an argument here. > 3 This patch does not have any potential compatibility risk with 3rd > party application. How do you know that? -- Steve > 4 Support writting "1...\0" to proc file. > > > > > Eric > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
