From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750778AbWGGHVL (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:21:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750842AbWGGHVL (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:21:11 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:15821 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbWGGHVJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:21:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT From: Arjan van de Ven To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: Ulrich Drepper , manfred@colorfullife.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, torvalds@osdl.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, roland@redhat.com, rlove@rlove.org, mtk-lkml@gmx.net, mtk-manpages@gmx.net In-Reply-To: <20060707070334.186790@gmx.net> References: <44A92DC8.9000401@gmx.net> <44AABB31.8060605@colorfullife.com> <20060706092328.320300@gmx.net> <44AD599D.70803@colorfullife.com> <44AD5CB6.7000607@redhat.com> <20060707043220.186800@gmx.net> <44ADE9B6.1020900@redhat.com> <20060707050731.186770@gmx.net> <44ADFD43.4040204@redhat.com> <20060707070334.186790@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:20:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1152256856.3111.20.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > There must be some framework for changing the kernel ABI over time. > We can't remain forever stuck with an ABI behaviour because > of the development model (i.e., no 2.7/2.8). Hi, this has nothing to do with the development model. The userspace syscall ABI *has* to be stable. If we make a mistake that's a high price but we pay it. This fwiw is one of the reasons we are/should be very careful with adding system calls, and make sure the behavior is indeed right. It's also the reason we're not so happy about new ioctls; they're effectively mini-system calls with the same ABI issues, but just less controlled/reviewed/designed/visible. Greetings, Arjan van de Ven