On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:32:26PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> There are 2 fields before Ngid and 35+ after Ngid. So the risk is not
> the same. Potentionally, Ngid addition broke almost every parser.
I don't get how we reach completely different conclusions from the
same observation. This
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:32:26PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
There are 2 fields before Ngid and 35+ after Ngid. So the risk is not
the same. Potentionally, Ngid addition broke almost every parser.
I don't get how we reach completely different conclusions from the
same observation. This
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:11:19AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > The only reason for changing the position is because
> > > there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
> > > that specific case while keeping
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:11:19AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
The only reason for changing the position is because
there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
that specific case while keeping the impact
"Wang, Xiaoming" writes:
> Dear tejun
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:42 AM
>> To: Wang, Xiaoming
>> Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
>> andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com;
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > The only reason for changing the position is because
> > there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
> > that specific case while keeping the impact minimum on everyone else.
>
> If there are TWO incorrect
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:12:59AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:05:55PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Moving Ngid to the end of file minimizes risk of breakage.
>
> Hmmm... how so?
Correctly written parser will be unaffected:
f = fopen("/proc/self/status",
Dear tejun
> -Original Message-
> From: Tejun Heo [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:13 PM
> To: Alexey Dobriyan
> Cc: Wang, Xiaoming; Linux Kernel; Mel Gorman; Andrew Morton
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: move the adding option Ngid to the
Dear tejun
-Original Message-
From: Tejun Heo [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:13 PM
To: Alexey Dobriyan
Cc: Wang, Xiaoming; Linux Kernel; Mel Gorman; Andrew Morton
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: move the adding option Ngid to the end of
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
The only reason for changing the position is because
there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
that specific case while keeping the impact minimum on everyone else.
If there are TWO incorrect
Wang, Xiaoming xiaoming.w...@intel.com writes:
Dear tejun
-Original Message-
From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Wang, Xiaoming
Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:12:59AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:05:55PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Moving Ngid to the end of file minimizes risk of breakage.
Hmmm... how so?
Correctly written parser will be unaffected:
f = fopen(/proc/self/status, r);
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:05:55PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Moving Ngid to the end of file minimizes risk of breakage.
Hmmm... how so? The only reason for changing the position is because
there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
that specific case while keeping
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:23:48PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> It was demonstrated that Ngid addition as line 4 breaks apps,
>> but your "what if" remains "what if".
>>
>> I'd say Ngid should be moved to the end and every new field
Hey,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:23:48PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> It was demonstrated that Ngid addition as line 4 breaks apps,
> but your "what if" remains "what if".
>
> I'd say Ngid should be moved to the end and every new field
> must be added to the end from now on, people can't parse
Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:15AM +0800, Wang Xiaoming wrote:
> > Move debugging has been done and the following Kernel issue
> > was found with a number of applications.
> > Take a look at: (even though the comments are for Weibo.browser
> > they also pertain to other apps
Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:15AM +0800, Wang Xiaoming wrote:
Move debugging has been done and the following Kernel issue
was found with a number of applications.
Take a look at: (even though the comments are for Weibo.browser
they also pertain to other apps that use
Hey,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:23:48PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
It was demonstrated that Ngid addition as line 4 breaks apps,
but your what if remains what if.
I'd say Ngid should be moved to the end and every new field
must be added to the end from now on, people can't parse
simple
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hey,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:23:48PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
It was demonstrated that Ngid addition as line 4 breaks apps,
but your what if remains what if.
I'd say Ngid should be moved to the end and every new field
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:05:55PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Moving Ngid to the end of file minimizes risk of breakage.
Hmmm... how so? The only reason for changing the position is because
there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
that specific case while keeping
Dear tejun
> -Original Message-
> From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:42 AM
> To: Wang, Xiaoming
> Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
> andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Wang, Xiaoming
wrote:
>> git describe --contains says 3.13 and it's about 1.5 years ago.
>>
> Yes this kernel change is 1.5 years ago.
> As we known not all user update the kernel so frequently.
> They just use the stable one.
> We met this issue when update to
Dear tejun
> -Original Message-
> From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:26 AM
> To: Wang, Xiaoming
> Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
> andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
>
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Wang, Xiaoming
wrote:
> I am not sure exactly which kernel introduced this Ngid.
> I check the git and found it added in
> commit e29cf08b05dc0b8151d65704d96d525a9e179a6b
git describe --contains says 3.13 and it's about 1.5 years ago.
> And this change
Dear tejun
> -Original Message-
> From: Tejun Heo [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 10:56 AM
> To: Wang, Xiaoming
> Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
> andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:15AM +0800, Wang Xiaoming wrote:
> Move debugging has been done and the following Kernel issue
> was found with a number of applications.
> Take a look at: (even though the comments are for Weibo.browser
> they also pertain to other apps that use
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Wang, Xiaoming
xiaoming.w...@intel.com wrote:
git describe --contains says 3.13 and it's about 1.5 years ago.
Yes this kernel change is 1.5 years ago.
As we known not all user update the kernel so frequently.
They just use the stable one.
We met this issue
Dear tejun
-Original Message-
From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Wang, Xiaoming
Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
Dear tejun
-Original Message-
From: hte...@gmail.com [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Wang, Xiaoming
Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:15AM +0800, Wang Xiaoming wrote:
Move debugging has been done and the following Kernel issue
was found with a number of applications.
Take a look at: (even though the comments are for Weibo.browser
they also pertain to other apps that use Libsecuritysdk-x.x.x.so
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Wang, Xiaoming
xiaoming.w...@intel.com wrote:
I am not sure exactly which kernel introduced this Ngid.
I check the git and found it added in
commit e29cf08b05dc0b8151d65704d96d525a9e179a6b
git describe --contains says 3.13 and it's about 1.5 years ago.
Dear tejun
-Original Message-
From: Tejun Heo [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 10:56 AM
To: Wang, Xiaoming
Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; o...@redhat.com;
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com; li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk;
32 matches
Mail list logo
