Re: [patch 3/3] s390: dasd extended error reporting module.

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:47 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:29:53PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > From: Stefan Weinhuber <wein@de.ibm.com>
> > 
> > [patch 3/3] s390: dasd extended error reporting module.
> > 
> Nack, now new ioctls in compat_ioctl.c, please.  In fact that file is
> gone in -mm, so please submit this patch ontop of the -mm tree.

Hmm, that's true. In that case it's probably best to wait until the
first wave of patches out of -mm have hit the git tree and then I
recreate the patch from our internal tree. The current patch dependecies
are starting to make my head ache.

> And is there a chance for a better interface than the notifier lists?
> The code looks rather awkward because of it.

Older versions of the code had an own registration function for a
callback pointer for the events. It only accepted one user and sort of
reinvented the notify functionality. I'd prefer notifiers compare to the
old solution. If you have a clever idea, we are listening.

On a side not, Arnd just told my about the bug in the dasd_eckd
discipline. We need to check the discipline in the eckd specific ioctls.
I'll tell the appropriate people (well in fact I already did because
they are on CC:). As for adding a per discipline .ioctl function, that
won't work because of cmb and eer. These modules do not implement a
discipline but still have to add ioctls.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin

Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/