On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > While I agree that getting that would be useful it is something that has > > nothing to do with issueing aio from kernel space and holding this > > patchset hostage for something you'd like to see but that was > > complicated enough that no one even tried it for many years seems > > entirely unreasonable. > > > > If there are any other issues left that I have missed it would be nice > > to get a pointer to it, or a quick brief. > > The item I was refering to is to removing the opcodes used for in-kernel > purposes from out of the range that the userland accessible opcodes can > reach. That is, put them above the 16 bit limit for userspace opcodes. > There is absolutely no reason to expose kernel internal opcodes via the > userspace exported includes. It's a simple and reasonable change, and I > see no reason for Dave not to make that modification. Until that is > done, I will nak the changes. Oh, missed that. I totally agree that it needs to be done. Dave, will you have time to do it soon or should I look into it myself? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
