On 01/17/2014 04:11 PM, Guy Martin wrote: > On 2014-01-17 15:08, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:01 AM, John David Anglin >> <dave.anglin@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 17-Jan-14, at 3:55 AM, Guy Martin wrote: >>> >>>> So despite the fact that this will break the ABI, the breakage >>>> should be minimal if non existent while it will fix a lot of >>>> hard to find and identify issues. >>> >>> >>> Have you tested the change? >> >> This is a good point. >> >> If you can make this change and still boot your system with a >> rebuilt kernel, then there is hope that your claims are true. >> >> The basic argument would be: * Change kernel header to make >> EWOULDBLOCK == AGAIN. * Rebuild kernel. * Boot system. * Verify >> system is semifunctional, networking, IO, disk, XVnc, etc. >> >> That would go a long way to showing that most of the system works. >> >> Then if you emerge the world against those changed headers and it >> goes well, then we might be talking about it being a low-impact >> change. >> > > I've rebuilt the kernel with the change and I can't see any impact. > NFS/SSH works fine and upgrading a few packages doesn't show any > issue. I don't have X on that box. Just a comment: If we do an ABI break, we maybe should take other topics into account at the same time as well, e.g. - increasing number of signals for systemd - dropping some HP-UX signals - maybe something needed to better support 64bit userspace ? - ... Helge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
