Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:36:27 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Why does x86_64 support a SuSE-specific ioctl? |
| |
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 05:35, Andi Kleen wrote: > > */ > > diff -urN linux-2.4.18.tmp/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h linux-2.4.18.SuSE/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h > > --- linux-2.4.18.tmp/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h Sat May 4 11:37:28 2002 > > +++ linux-2.4.18.SuSE/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h Sat May 4 11:37:56 2002 > > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ > > #define TIOCGSID 0x5429 /* Return the session ID of FD */ > > #define TIOCGPTN _IOR('T',0x30, unsigned int) /* Get Pty Number (of pty-mux device) */ > > #define TIOCSPTLCK _IOW('T',0x31, int) /* Lock/unlock Pty */ > > +#define TIOCGDEV _IOR('T',0x32, unsigned int) /* Get real dev no below /dev/console */ > > > > Shouldn't these values be reserved in 2.5 before anything goes into 2.4 > for this - the values finally used might be different
yes it should, just like the MAP_BIGPAGE and several other bits in the rhas (O_ATOMICLOOKUP etc...):
+#define MAP_BIGPAGE 0x40 /* bigpage mapping */
I attempted doing a sync with mainline for all these potential future binary-incompatibilities several months ago but it went to /dev/null and nobody cared to merge these bits into mainline, hopefully this thread will bring more attention to these kind of patches now.
Andrea - 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/
| |