Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) | From | Ben LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] blkgetsize64 ioctl |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Michael E Brown wrote:
> And your response to the rest of the points I raised would be?
fs/block_dev.c is not a hot spot in the kernel. It's been patched maybe 3 or 4 times over the last year, so I don't buy the argument that it would have been difficult to maintain. (Think if (offset >= last_block_start(dev) return read_last_block(offset, buf, len);)
> I'm sorry about e2fsprogs. If I had known a bit better (this was my first > kernel patch), I would have added a magic number to the struct you pass > in, and that would have prevented this little bit of braindamage.
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. I just hope people will remember this in the future. ABI compatibility is not that hard if it's thought about.
-ben
- 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/
| |