Re: Why does x86_64 support a SuSE-specific ioctl?

[Andi Kleen]

> 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