On 8/13/05, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 10:00:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 14:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:40:02PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wroqte: > > > > Here's a patch that converts all architectures to behave like other unix > > > > boxes signal handling. It's funny that I didn't need to change the m68k > > > > architecture, since it was the only one that already behaves this way! > > > > (the m68knommu does not!) > > > [snip] > > My general feeling about the change is that it risks breaking programs > and doesn't seem to have any compelling advantages, > so unless there is a bug demonstrated I wouldn't apply it. > > -Andi >
As I see it, the advantages are that we would a) match the documentation (man pages & posix/SUS) which makes things easier for application writers who won't have to scratch their beards wondering why Linux doesn't behave like the docs say. And b) Linux behaviour would match what most (all?) other Unices do, so there'll be less hassle/bugs when porting apps from other systems to Linux. To me, those look like significant bennefits. As for the "it may break programs" bit, that of course is a concern, but one way around that would be to stick it in -mm and let it cook for a few kernel releases. Say we stick it in -mm with a plan to merge it into 2.6.16-rc1, that should give it quite a bit of time to determine if it breaks apps (and if it does, to fix those apps). Just my 0.02euro. -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
