Re: [PATCH RFC 02/11] vfs/btrfs: add .clone_range file operation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:33:40PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
>> @@ -316,12 +316,6 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_search_args_v2 {
>>       __u64 buf[0];                       /* out - found items */
>>  };
>>
>> -struct btrfs_ioctl_clone_range_args {
>> -  __s64 src_fd;
>> -  __u64 src_offset, src_length;
>> -  __u64 dest_offset;
>> -};
>
> For backward compatibility and not-breaking-builds reasons, do not
> remove anything from this file.
>
Got you. I'll keep it unchanged in the next version.

>> -
>>  /* flags for the defrag range ioctl */
>>  #define BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_COMPRESS 1
>>  #define BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_START_IO 2
>> @@ -548,7 +542,6 @@ static inline char *btrfs_err_str(enum btrfs_err_code err_code)
>>  #define BTRFS_IOC_TRANS_END    _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 7)
>>  #define BTRFS_IOC_SYNC         _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 8)
>>
>> -#define BTRFS_IOC_CLONE        _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, int)
>
> The ioctl definition reuses the BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC (0x94), which is IMHO
> wrong.
>
I thought it breaks ABI if we choose a different value for the type
field of the ioctl. Am I misunderstanding it?

Thanks,
Tao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux