On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:59:05AM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > If we rename it to e.g. SG_GET_MAX_XFER_BYTES, it will still break > applications unless we also keep the wrong/ugly/confusing name (and > you lose the advantage/generality that the two ioctls can be used on > both sg and "pure" block devices; which seems to be the case of some > SG_* ioctls as well). How is that an advantage? Applications that works with block devices don't really work with a magic passthrough character device. > I don't really care enough though. I mean, I'm okay with > SG_GET_MAX_XFER_BYTES *and* NO "improper" BLKSECTGET. If that will get > the patch series in, I am willing to send a new version. If not, I'm > just gonna drop this. You must assume that there are applications already that depend in the "weird" BLKSECTGET on sg, given that it has been around so long. Any change to the semantics will break them.
