[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C098BF.6010203@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:09:03 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86_64,signal: Remove 'fs' and 'gs' from sigcontext
On 07/11/2014 11:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
>>> index 076b11f..df9908b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
>>
>> I don't think renaming fields in uapi/asm is acceptable. These
>> are likely used by user programs and you'll break compiles.
>
> Hmm. That's a fair point. On the other hand, any user code that uses
> these fields explicitly may already be broken, since the current names
> of these fields rather strongly imply that they do something.
>
> Is there any clear policy on minor API breaks in the UAPI headers that
> don't affect ABI?
>
There really isn't, and this *definitely* a boundary case: as you state,
it is very likely that anyone currently using them are doing so
incorrectly, but it does induce potential source-level breakage.
Linus, do you have any guidance here?
-hpa
--
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