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 minimum on everyone else. > > > > If there are TWO incorrect parsers, one for TracerPid, another for Ngid, > > you CAN'T workaround it. And if you can't workaround you choose code > > which was written first, namely, TracerPid one. > > Not when the code has been out for 1.5 years. Minimizing the > disturbance is the better course of action. Look at the file. If you > move ngid to the end now, it's gonna shift most of the file content, > which is what caused the problem in the first place. > > We don't know what's out there which again was the same problem which > triggered this thread in the first place. Why would you take the same > amount of risk when you can fix the known issue with less amount of > changes?
There are 2 fields before Ngid and 35+ after Ngid. So the risk is not the same. Potentionally, Ngid addition broke almost every parser. > Just put ngid after tracerpid. That way, we can fix the > known problems while changing the offsets of only four fields. At > this point, no change to the file layout is "right". Such thing isn't > defined regardless of who came first. The only thing we can do is > working around the known cases while minimizing possible impacts. We'll return to this thread when next breakage will be reported, I promise. :^) -- 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/
