Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:15:01 +0000 | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Subject | Re: fcntl(2) and other file systems like XFS |
| |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Jim Mostek wrote: > > If Linux/Linus doesn't want to do this, we should have one file with all > ioctls. I see that there is /usr/include/bits/ioctls.h and > /usr/include/asm/ioctls.h. But, ext2's ioctls are in an ext2 specific file: > > What should XFS or any other file system do with these? I guess they > should return EINVAL. What if we accidentally or purposely get called > with this?
EINVAL is correct. As long as the ioctl() namespace doesn't have conflicts there won't be a problem (and the _IO* macros are designed to avoid conflicts as long as you don't use the identity character of an existing set of drivers).
> I guess the way to fix all this is to make a patch and see if it gets > accepted. Suggestions?
I'm not sure why you want to fix anything: what is the problem? If you simply reject ioctls you don't understand when you get called in the fs- specific ioctl method, what goes wron with the existing mechanisms?
--Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |