On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: > > > On August 24, 2015 6:57:57 PM MDT, Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>An application from HuaWei which works fine on 2.6 encounters this >>issue on 3.0 or later kernel. > > My sympathies. Being stuck with a 3rd party application you can barely talk > about that has been broken for 5years and no one reported it. > > Ordinarily we would fix a regression like this. As it has been 5years the > challenge now is how do we tell if there are applications that depend on the > current behavior. > > Before we can change the behavior back we need a convincing argument that we > won't cause a regression in another application by making the change. > > I do not see how such an argument can be made. So you have my sympathies but > I do not see how we can help you. We should consider this patch basing on my following arguments. 1 Different version kernel should keep consistent on this behavior. 2 This writting behavior on proc file should be same with writting on regular file as possible as we can. 3 This patch does not have any potential compatibility risk with 3rd party application. 4 Support writting "1...\0" to proc file.
> > Eric > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
