On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the > > struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no > > reason to continue maintaining the fiction that the 32-bit and 64-bit > > ioctls are in some way incompatible with each other when they aren't > > AFAIK. > > It's a corner case of some sort, as DM uses ioctl numbers differently > from most subsystems by splitting to code from the size argument > during processing. Your change is certainly not an _incompatible_ > change to the ABI, but 32 bit binaries compiled against the new > headers will use different ioctl numbers from those built against > older headers. > > This may break other code that expects a specific number, even > if your handler does not care. The old compat code handles both > variants (no variable size arguments), but /usr/bin/strace may have > encoded only one set of numbers AFAICT. > > > And yes, a follow-up patch can clean up our use of the compatibility > > mechanism, going a little bit further than the patch you attached, I > > hope. > > Ok, sounds good. I don't think it's the kind of patch that should go > into stable backports though. Ok, I've not added this patch (2/25) to the queue at all. If this is incorrect, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
