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

From: Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 00:10:04 EST


> 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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:49 EST