On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:14:20 +1300 "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's always been invalid to call waitid() with a NULL pointer. It was an > > oversight that it was allowed (and acts like a wait4() call instead). > > > > Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Modulo the observation that this change will break any Linux-specific > application that violate POSIX.1's requirement that infop not be NULL > (*), and rely on the existing Linux behavior for > waitd(idtype,id,NULL,options): > Well yes. waitid() has been in there since 2.6.9. I assume that it has had this wait4-emulation mode for that amount of time as well? > > (*) It seems unlikely that such applications exist, and we really > should make this change for POSIX.1 conformance. Well, we might get away with it. But formally speaking, we should live with our Linux-specific screwup. If we _are_ going to make this change then we should merge it as far back in -stable as we can, to reduce the risk that people will develop applications on kernel version A only to have then behave differently on version B. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
