Re: [PATCH] net-sysfs: Report link speed only when possible

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:44:30AM CEST, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>From: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:30:27 +0200
>
>> On 16.06.2014 10:11, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
>>>
>>>> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>>>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>>>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>>>>> long time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
>>>> library/kernel APIs won't change.
>>>
>>> Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is
>>> definitely
>>> going to be pre-3.16 for years.
>>>
>> 
>> That's why every distribution out there has a mechanism to install
>> packages of a certain version, or those providing certain symbol,
>> whatever. Or distributions can then backport some kernel patches or
>> something. But, that's completely unrelated to the problem I'm fixing
>> here. I don't think this bikeshedding is useful for anything, sorry.
>
>You're being entirely impractical.
>
>By restricting an application to a kernel version or behavior "via
>backported patches" which doesn't even exist yet, you are foolishly
>restricting your userbase.
>
>People just cope with what the current kernels support, when possible,
>and that's the right thing to do because we cannot break it on them
>exactly because people can depend upon the behavior.
>
>NOBODY is checking for -EINVAL returns when reading the link speed
>sysfs file, and therefore by signalling it you will break
>applications.
>
>So I will not apply a patch which adds that new behavior, sorry.
>
>I am not willing to discuss this further, this is fundamental and
>simple as far as I'm concerned.
>

Let's just hope we do not introduce some other, more serious bug
somewhere else in user api. I see that such things are unfixable :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/