On 10/15/2013 12:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? I'll take care of it. I actually made this change and somehow misplaced it. Sorry about that. Dave -- 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
