Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full exclusive mode
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:52:46 +0200
- From: Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full exclusive mode
2018-06-12 18:47 GMT+02:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:39 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As mentioned by Linus, swait is exclusive mode and had better behave like it
>> and be named like it.
> Ack on the patches.
> I do note how quilt emails are really hard to read, because that:
> Content-Disposition: inline
> makes gmail think it's flowed.
> Which works horribly badly for patches, surprise surprise.
> So I really wish quilt wouldn't do that. It does smell like a gmail
> bug, but at the same time, why would you use "Content-Disposition:
> inline" when you don't have an actual multi-part email? So I do blame
> quilt too for sending nonsensical headers.
> (Yes, yes, I see the "It is permissible to use Content-Disposition on
> the main body" in the RFC. But the RFC also makes it clear that it
> actually matters for how things are presented, so saying "ok, I'll do
> flowed" seems equally insane and equally technically RFC-compliant)
Quilt uses those Content-Disposition headers to preserve the patch
filenames; the full headers look like:
Content-Disposition: inline; filename=foo.patch
Various mail clients use that as the default filename when saving
emails, but there's been at least one other mail client that didn't
handle those headers very well.
Is this a new problem with gmail?
I'm not sure whose workflows would break if we kill those headers
altogether, but maybe we can omit them by default.