On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Roland McGrath 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). I'm not going to take this. If it was some new system call, of if there was some downside to out behavior, I might be interested. As it is, our behaviour has zero downside, and changing existing interfaces simply isn't worth it. The alleged "downsides" are bogus: - POSIX is not that strict. EFAULT is one of the odd error cases anyway, and even explicit requirements are irrelevant: if somebody wants to get strict conformance paperwork done, you just need to tell where you differ, and you're basically done. But perhaps more important, nobody cares. - The "portability" argument is totally bogus, since it's not like you compile programs without even testing to another UNIX _anyway_. So I'm simply not going to potentially break binaries over something that is so _totally_ irrelevant. Document it in the man-page instead. Linus -- 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
