From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932325AbVHMV3p (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:29:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932329AbVHMV3p (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:29:45 -0400 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:19874 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932325AbVHMV3o (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:29:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:29:24 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Andi Kleen , LKML , rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, gerg@uclinux.org, jdike@karaya.com, sammy@sammy.net, lethal@linux-sh.org, wli@holomorphy.com, davem@davemloft.net, matthew@wil.cx, geert@linux-m68k.org, paulus@samba.org, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, dev-etrax@axis.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net, spyro@f2s.com, Robert Wilkens , Bodo Stroesser , Jan Engelhardt , Chris Wright , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert sigaction to act like other unices Message-ID: <20050813212924.GQ22901@wotan.suse.de> References: <1123900802.5296.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050813123956.GN22901@wotan.suse.de> <1123941614.5296.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1123941614.5296.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 10:00:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 14:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:40:02PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wroqte: > > > Here's a patch that converts all architectures to behave like other unix > > > boxes signal handling. It's funny that I didn't need to change the m68k > > > architecture, since it was the only one that already behaves this way! > > > (the m68knommu does not!) > > > > > > > > This is not a description of what you changed. A patch entry has to > > start with a rationale and then a description of the change. > > Sorry, I forgot that not all were in on the thread. (duh, I added a > bunch of others, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly). I actually read the thread, but patches with useless descriptions like your previous one cannot be applied in general because you cannot expect that people later looking at the logs know about some obscure thread months or years before. Or rather the person who applied it would need to write a better description on his own, which is not their job. My general feeling about the change is that it risks breaking programs and doesn't seem to have any compelling advantages, so unless there is a bug demonstrated I wouldn't apply it. -Andi