Joe Thornber wrote:
>ii) vcalloc, this *didn't* get merged, and will probably end up getting
> moved into dm.h.
>
Yeah, historically we have avoided things like this.
kcalloc gets proposed every year or so too.
>iii) ioctl32 support: people have argued against an ioctl interface,
> and I'm inclined to agree with them, which is why I'm going to
> publish an fs interface shortly. However, given that we are
> currently using an ioctl interface how do we avoid adding support for
> 32bit userland/64 kernel space ? If EVMS isn't touching these
> files does that mean they're not supporting these architectures ?
>
> arch/mips64/kernel/ioctl32.c
> arch/ppc64/kernel/ioctl32.c
> arch/s390x/kernel/ioctl32.c
> arch/sparc64/kernel/ioctl32.c
>
>
Well, I'll note that ALSA compartmentalizes their ioctl32 handling
within their own subsystem, which seems like a decent solution.
That said, [maybe I'm biased <g>], using an fs interface allows one to
completely eliminate an ioctl32 interface. That would be the direction
I would greatly prefer by the time 2.5.x hits the code freeze.
Best regards, and congrats for getting it merged,
Jeff
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:53 EST