From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262307AbVAOT5s (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:57:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262315AbVAOT5r (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:57:47 -0500 Received: from pimout1-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.77]:60124 "EHLO pimout1-ext.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262307AbVAOT5q (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:57:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:55:04 -0800 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , matthias@corelatus.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases Message-ID: <20050115195504.GA10754@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <16872.55357.771948.196757@antilipe.corelatus.se> <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org> <20050115093657.GI3474@holomorphy.com> <1105783125.6300.32.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1105783125.6300.32.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:45AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I don't see a valid reason to restrict/reject input that is accepted > now and dealt with reasonably because some standard says so (if you > design a new api, following the standard is nice of course). I don't > see "doesn't reject a condition that can reasonable be dealt with" > as a good reason to go double ABI at all. we could printk for now and if nobody reports this to lkml (as they do/did with oldish tcpdump/libpcap a while ago) we could -EINVAL