[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907240930120.3960@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression] kdesu broken
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:21:45 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 24 July 2009, Ray Lee wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > > > A recent kernel change broke kdesu (from KDE 4.2) on my test boxes. ISTR a
> > > > discussion about that, but I can't find it right now. Any clues?
> > >
> > > See the thread starting here: ("possible regression with pty.c commit")
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/11/125
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer.
> >
> > Well, I thought we were expected to avoid breaking existing user space, even
> > if that were buggy etc.
>
> I don't know where you got that idea from. Avoiding breaking user space
> unneccessarily is good but if its buggy you often can't do anything about
> it.
Alan, he got that idea from me.
We don't do regressions. If user space depended on old behavior, we don't
change behavior.
And regardless of that, I do not think EIO is the right thing to return at
all. If the other side of a pty went away, return 0 and possibly send a
HUP, or whatever. What did we do before?
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