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 > proc/PID/status > > 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 the impact minimum on everyone else. > It doesn't matter whether the initial change was good or bad, the kernel w/ > the > new layout is already out in the wild and it has been out there for a while. > How > is risking changing offsets on most of the fields on those kernels a good > idea? > Mimize the changes to work around the specific case. >
Do you mean we should to update the every application under this new order? > > Correctly written code doesn't care. > > Code which hardcodes layout won't notice. > > Huh? Code which hardcodes layout since 1.5 years ago will definitely notice. > As I mentioned before not all user update the kernel so frequently. They will met this issue, if update to the 3.13, The application failed to use which may run well previously. > > It would be OK argument if gentlemen from Intel send "let's > > futureproof and move Ngid because someone might depend on exact > position" patch. > > > > Primum non nocere. > > ajlkjaeligjlakd lakjeilgjal flekjfa. > > -- > tejun -- 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/
