Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:09:26 -0400 (EDT) | From | Ben LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [resend PATCH] reserve BLKGETSIZE64 ioctl |
| |
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> Yes. > > (1) As you can see you'll only get redefinition complaints. > In other words, there is a B too much in the ioctl name.
Yeah, the previous version was actually matching the subject.
> (2) We just concluded that 108-111 have been used for various > private purposes. If we avoid 108-111 in all official kernels > then nobody will be surprised if he ever uses some system > utility that uses one of these. > Thus, it is a very bad idea to want to use these again.
Where was 110 used? That wasn't mentioned in the last thread.
> (3) Soon we'll all need a BLKGETSIZE64 ioctl, that gives > the size of a block device in bytes. Your proposed ioctl > gave the size in blocks if I recall correctly. > So, if you have to change the name and the number, > you might as well change the definition.
I'd accepted that suggestion, I suppose that it should be added to the comment.
-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/
| |