Heya, I'm backporting 752863bddaca ("block: propagate partition
scanning errors to the BLKRRPART ioctl") to LTS and noticed it
conflicts in the blkdev.h header, where in upstream we had already
introduced another blk_mode_t for bit 5, and this new STRICT_SCAN uses
bit 6...
In this scenario, would we prefer keep the bit used consistent (so
have a gap with an unused bit 5 - what I would typically go with), or
renumber to avoid the gap?
In question:
/* open for "writes" only for ioctls (specialy hack for floppy.c) */
#define BLK_OPEN_WRITE_IOCTL ((__force blk_mode_t)(1 << 4))
+/* return partition scanning errors */
+#define BLK_OPEN_STRICT_SCAN ((__force blk_mode_t)(1 << 6))
