[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why does x86_64 support a SuSE-specific ioctl?
> It seems like a good idea to -not- add this ioctl, because
> * if 2.4.x and 2.5.x don't have it, there obviously isn't a huge need
> for it, so why add one more ioctl we will have to maintain binary
> compatibility for

The 'blogd' daemon requires it. There is also no other good way to do this
(parsing /proc/cmdline is not an option because /proc may not exist or
note be mounted)

> * "real dev" doesn't necessary have meaning in all contexts, IIRC

Can you give an example on when it doesn't have meaning ?

> * viro might have a cow at the use of kdev_t_to_nr... is that required
> for compatibility with some existing apps? It seems like you want to
> _decompose_ a number into major/minor, to be an interface that
> withstands the test of time

It withstands the test of time as well as stat(2) or the loop ioctls.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.056 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site