On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:43:38 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah, I know. It's not nice (as I wrote in the first mail), it doesn't > > work well, etc. But it's not the point (as I wrote in the previous > > mail). I'm against the patch just because I don't think the rules > > about the userspace API permit removing the exiting API like this. > > Ok perhaps removing the define was a bit much, but at least stubbing > the ioctl should be transparent to the application. > > Ok except that I return EINVAL in the set variant now. I could lie and return 0 > instead, although I suspect it wouldn't make much difference either > way. > > > > > If the rules permit, I'm happy to try to remove more old features of > > sg. > > As long as old binaries don't break I don't see a problem with > any such changes (afaik that's true for my change) Well, your change might break old binaries. We never know. As discussed, SG_SET_FORCE_LOW_DMA is not useful and doesn't work well. But it might work in some environments. If you make it lie and just return 0, the bounce buffer latency could break old binaries. It's unlikely but we never know, that's the whole point of the rules about the userspace API? But if the rules permit, the patch is fine by me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
