Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] blkgetsize64 ioctl | Date | Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:03:25 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben LaHaise wrote: > > No, that's not what's got me miffed. What is a problem here is that an > > obvious next to use ioctl number in a *CORE* kernel api was used without > > reserving it. AND PEOPLE SHIPPED IT! I for one don't go about shipping > > new ABIs without reserving at least a placeholder for it in the main > > kernel (or stating that the code is not bearing a fixed ABI). If the > > ioctl # was in the main kernel, this mess would never have happened even > > with the accidental shipping of the patch in e2fsprogs. > > ... and for my part, I included the patch in e2fsprogs because Ben > sent me the patch, saying that people would want to test it, and I > assumed he had already reserved the ioctl in the kernel. I should > have checked first....
Follow the rule I use with Linus - never send proposed changes you dont mean to be merged in a compilable form
On this subject I think it would be good to get the security() syscall allocated now that folks are using the LSM framework for real stuff - even the NSA stuff
Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |