Re: trustirq patch for 2.1.127

Ken Pizzini (ken@halcyon.com)
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:54:27 -0800

In mail.linux-kernel,
message <Pine.LNX.3.96.981111170213.5227A-100000@dragon.bogus>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com> wrote:
>And btw the lp_table[minor].flags seems to have something to do with POSIX
>(reading the comment above the flag #definitions). I don' t know POSIX,
>but such .flags fields are not accessible from userspace so I don' t think
>that I am breaking POSIX adding my LP_TRUST_IRQ flag in such place. Am I
>breaking POSIX removing LP_CAREFUL btw? I don' t think that POSIX has
>defined a LP_CAREFUL flag since it never made a lot of sense.
>
>If everything with POSIX is OK, this could be applyed to 2.1.127 I think.

The comment in quesion is:
* Per POSIX guidelines, this module reserves the LP and lp prefixes
* These are the lp_table[minor].flags flags...

First off, none of the adopted POSIX standards has a peep to say
about how "lp" devices work. (The closest is the "lp" printer
spooler interface.)

What that comment must be referring to is the POSIX practice of
carving out a chunk of namespace for its purposes, such as
all TC prefixed identifiers for the newer <termios.h> interfaces.
So as long as you prefix your new <linux/lp.h> #define's with
LP_ you are properly following along in this spirit...

--Ken Pizzini

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/