> 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/