Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
>
> Until now as the source already says, we had a very unpleasant
> situation with struct loop_info:
This patch makes me pull faces, sorry.
a) The name "loop_info2" is meaningless. Something like loop_info64 would
communicate something to the reader.
b) It is impossible for the reader to tell _why_ loop_info and loop_info2
exist.
It will be especially mysterious in 2.8, where there is no loop_info,
only a loop_info2.
Hence covering commentary is compulsory.
c) Could we not save a lot of noise by putting:
typedef unsigned short legacy_dev_t; /* <= linux-2.4.x */
into asm/posix_types.h and then keep all this stuff just in
<linux/loop.h>?
d) Would it be possible to just add a u64 to the _end_ of the existing
loop_info and, in the legacy ioctl(), simply massage it?
-
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 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:23 EST