Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Oct 2002 07:10:04 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 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.
-Andi - 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/
| |