From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: xiaoming.wang@intel.com,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: move the adding option Ngid to the end of proc/PID/status
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:11:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150421151119.GB9455@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150421140007.GA22502@p183.telecom.by>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > The only reason for changing the position is because
> > there's this specific breakage. The goal should be working around
> > that specific case while keeping the impact minimum on everyone else.
>
> If there are TWO incorrect parsers, one for TracerPid, another for Ngid,
> you CAN'T workaround it. And if you can't workaround you choose code
> which was written first, namely, TracerPid one.
Not when the code has been out for 1.5 years. Minimizing the
disturbance is the better course of action. Look at the file. If you
move ngid to the end now, it's gonna shift most of the file content,
which is what caused the problem in the first place.
We don't know what's out there which again was the same problem which
triggered this thread in the first place. Why would you take the same
amount of risk when you can fix the known issue with less amount of
changes? Just put ngid after tracerpid. That way, we can fix the
known problems while changing the offsets of only four fields. At
this point, no change to the file layout is "right". Such thing isn't
defined regardless of who came first. The only thing we can do is
working around the known cases while minimizing possible impacts.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-21 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-17 13:23 Alexey Dobriyan
2015-04-17 14:26 ` Tejun Heo
2015-04-17 15:05 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2015-04-17 15:12 ` Tejun Heo
2015-04-21 8:19 ` Wang, Xiaoming
2015-04-21 14:00 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2015-04-21 15:11 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2015-04-23 20:32 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2015-04-24 15:50 ` Tejun Heo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-04-17 2:13 Wang Xiaoming
2015-04-17 2:56 ` Tejun Heo
2015-04-17 3:15 ` Wang, Xiaoming
2015-04-17 3:26 ` Tejun Heo
2015-04-17 3:37 ` Wang, Xiaoming
2015-04-17 3:42 ` Tejun Heo
2015-04-17 5:36 ` Wang, Xiaoming
2015-04-21 15:19 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150421151119.GB9455@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=xiaoming.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®