On 2013-03-28 02:51, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:14:49PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao wrote:
I'd like to find a possible solution for the EPERM problem that we've
been discussing. It requires some rework and performance evaluation.
The problem is that there is a huge installed base of
systems that show this broken behaviour, so even if
we find a proper fix for it we still should document
which systems may be affected by the spurious EPERM
bug, thus giving application programmers a chance to
add logic to their programs to recover from such
eventualities.
I see. The problem is that it will take some time until that manpage
update reaches main distributions, by that time we may have fixed it
already in existing kernels. Then, we'll have to remove it again.
IMHO, if the second patch were applied too and we managed to
fix the bug it documents after that, we should not revert it but
apply a new patch along the lines of: "In older versions of the
Linux kernel (< 3.??) ...". I will certainly want applications
developed on future distributions to work properly on my legacy
Debian Squeeze systems (a distribution upgrade or a backport
of the upstream fix to your distribution's kernel may not possible).
I still think patch 1 already provides some clue to programmers
regarding EPERM at this moment (even if not so explicit and detailed).
For the reasons exposed above I'd rather have the second patch
applied too, but I will defer to you and Michael on that regard.
Please, ping me again if we didn't come up with some solution for this
in some prudential amount of time.
I will. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you kept me CCed.
- Fernando
--
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
