On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:16:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This change seems rather bogus, you're changing the ABI just to work
> around a bug in the compat_ioctl layer. Why not just do the compat
> code the right way, like the patch below?
The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the
struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no
reason to continue maintaining the fiction that the 32-bit and 64-bit
ioctls are in some way incompatible with each other when they aren't
AFAIK.
And yes, a follow-up patch can clean up our use of the compatibility
mechanism, going a little bit further than the patch you attached, I
hope.
Alasdair
--
[email protected]
-
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]
