Hi, On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Miller wrote:
> Also, it bears repeating that whatever performance argument you make for > or against this issue matters little if it breaks lots of existing and > working code. It matters insofar as that existing and working code is broken in a strict sense. As long as that holds there's a high chance of "breaking" it at random times again in the future, even when the one transformation is changed to not "break" it anymore. So, we either can change the transformation and wait for the next uproar in a couple of months or somehow hope that code is fixed. But that's all the same argumentation like in the signed integer overflow discussion, so my hopes for the latter are quite low. I mean who am I to demand that people write correct code, I must be insane. > It is also important to remind people that paper standards count less > than common sense and what effects users on a practical level, even when > those paper standards allow your favorite optimization or > transformation. <tongue-in-cheek> You mean like POSIX doesn't count very much for the kernel behaviour? </tongue-in-cheek> You ask us to somehow regard common sense (whatever that is) and practicality reasons (for which set of people?) higher than paper standards. How comes then, that under linux directories are still seekable? Certainly when I sometimes try to convince our kernel people of some clever idea, they happily use the POSIX hammer quite fine. I sigh and move on. So what exactly brings you into a position to define common sense or which paper standards we should ignore? Ciao, Michael.
