On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:20:41AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2012 09:09:21 AM Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:47:46AM -0800, Andy King wrote: > > > I didn't get the resend either, so it seems our corporate mail really is > > > eating messages. Lovely. > > > > > > > > > +#define IOCTLCMD(_cmd) IOCTL_VMCI_ ## _cmd > > > > > > > > > > I don't recall ever getting a valid answer for this (if you did, my > > > > > appologies, can you repeat it). What in the world are you talking > > > > > about here? Why is your driver somehow special from the thousands > > > > > of other ones that use the in-kernel IO macros properly for an > > > > > ioctl? > > > > > > Because we're morons. And unfortunately, we've shipped our product > > > using those broken definitions: our VMX uses them to talk to the driver. > > > So here's what we'd like to do. We will send out a patch soon that > > > fixes the other issues you mention and also adds IOCTL definitions the > > > proper way using _IOBLAH(). But we'd also like to retain these broken > > > definitions for a short period, commented as such, at least until we > > > can get out a patch release to Workstation 9, at which point we can > > > remove them. Does that sound reasonable? > > > > It has been my experience, that when people say "We will remove that api > > sometime in the future", it never happens. So why not just do it now? > > > > Especially given that this code will be coming out in 3.9 at the > > earliest, and that is 6 months away, so that should be plenty of time to > > get this fixed up. > > Our schedule for releasing hosted products is not necessarily aligned > with mainline kernel releases. And kernel developers don't really care about company schedules, nor should they, you know this :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
