[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:0.024 / U:4.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site