[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808121516180.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] readdir mess
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> That said there is nothing that says we can't have a 'posix_me_harder'
> sysfs control for such things. The standards say what should occur in the
> normal situation not what should occur if you intentionally move out of
> the standard definition.
Yeah. That said, I doubt it's a very common problem in practice. I'm
pretty sure nobody really cares, and almost nobody really wants to run
really old binaries. So it's almost certainly not worth it (and the one
time I had it happen, I didn't bother to do it right, I just hacked around
it and obviously never committed the hack).
I just find it a bit sad how well we actually _can_ run old binaries, but
sometimes there are these new things that were literally designed to break
them.
Of course, the much more common breakage comes from not having access to
old shared libraries etc totally user-space issues. The few kernel cases
of EOVERFLOW are totally hidden by just distro differences over time. If
the binary I had hadn't been statically linked, I wouldn't have had a
chance, I suspect.
(Of course, static linking wasn't exactly unusual for really old binaries)
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists