On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:31:16 -0500
Kevin Corry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu June 22 2006 11:55 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:17:21 +0100 Alasdair G Kergon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 01:29:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > See also block/scsi_ioctl.c:201 verify_command() [scsi_cmd_ioctl]
> > > * file can be NULL from ioctl_by_bdev()...
> > >
> > > Or should we be working towards eliminating interfaces that use device
> > > numbers?
> >
> > If possible. I guess that would require DM to track the devices with
> > file*'s or inode*'s or bdev*'s. Which, I assume, would be non-trivial.
>
> There already is a bdev pointer available. Each "consumed" device get a struct
> dm_dev, which has a *bdev field. From the bdev, it looks like we should be
> able to get to the gendisk, then the block_device_operations, and then the
> ioctl routine (if it exists). Correct?
>
My head is spinning in a twisty maze of ioctls. What _should_ we call?
file_operations.foo_ioctl() or block_device_operations.foo_ioctl() or
blkdev_ioctl()?
I think as far as the user is concerned, file_operations.foo_ioctl(),
because that's what the user would end up calling against /dev/sda.
Whether that's always, reliably, equivalent to
block_device_operations.foo_ioctl() I am presently disinclined to spare
time to discover.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
