Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Fri Feb 15 2013 - 12:39:44 EST

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:42:27 +0100 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > This is a non-back-compatible userspace interface change. A procfs
>> > file which previously displayed
>> >
>> > eventfd-count: nnnn
>> >
>> > can now also display
>> >
>> > eventfd-mask: nnnn
>> >
>> > So existing userspace could misbehave.
>> >
>> > Please fully describe the proposed interface change in the changelog.
>> > That description should include the full pathname of the procfs file
>> > and example before-and-after output and a discussion of whether and why
>> > the risk to existing userspace is acceptable.
>> I am not sure what the policy is here. Is not printing out the state of
>> the object acceptable way to maintain backward compatibility? If not so,
>> does new type of object require new procfs file, which, AFAIU, is the
>> only way to retain full backward compatibility?
> Adding a new file is the only way I can think of to preserve the API.
> But from Andy's comment is sounds like we don't have to worry a lot
> about back-compatibility.

I'm not even convinced there's an issue in the first place (other than
the fact that use of this feature will break old criu, regardless of
/proc changes). The fdinfo files already vary by descriptor type.
Anything that screws up if unexpected fields are present is already

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at