lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] POSIX personality


On Thu, 23 May 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> I think the reason which comes to mind is avoiding future problems. By
> having a single POSIX mode flag not only does the program not have to know
> about setting the "right" other bits today, but if we find that POSIX
> behaviour is needed in some other area in the future, the program doesn't
> need to be modified and recompiled, because the POSIX behaviour "is in
> there" for all things.

That's a nice argument in theory, but if you change the behaviour of
existing flags, you might fix some program for the real semantics, but you
might equally well _break_ some program that unwittingly depended on the
old semantics.

So I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. The binary has been
tested with the old behaviour, and assuming that you can "fix" existing
binaries by changing kernel behaviour is a seriously flawed argument.

Yes, it might work for some programs, but basically you're on very thin
ice.

Does Linux break stuff when absolutely required? Sure. But designing an
interface that _plans_ on changing semantics is just incredibly stupid,
and should absolutely not be done. Ever.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.131 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site