An interesting conversation, this.
A is blamed for making the terrible mistake of shipping an unreserved ioctl,
very stupid, because by accident B has made the minor mistake of shipping
an unreserved ioctl.
Maybe I misread something.
From: Michael E Brown <michael_e_brown@dell.com>
Alan,
Here is a patch that reserves the 108 and 109 ioctl numbers for
get/set last sector. This patch has already been merged into the ia64
tree, and is currently necessary in order to support the EFI GPT
partitioning scheme on ia64. It is also in the Red Hat kernel tree. I had
assumed that somebody at Red Hat would have forwarded it to you.
Marking the numbers not-to-be-used is certainly a good idea.
Concerning the need for this particular nonsense - we have had this
discussion earlier this year, and also without any patches
one can read the last sector. (Using some bad kludge, but still..)
One of the patches I have at ftp.kernel.org removes the entire problem -
one needs (1) a test in ll_rw_blk.c that uses not the size in 1024-byte blocks
but in 512-byte sectors, and (2) a set-blocksize ioctl.
And this latter is needed for other reasons as well.
Maybe I should resubmit some such patch fragments?
Andries
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=patch-getlastsector-20010213
>
> ZGlmZiAtcnVQIGxpbnV4L2luY2x1ZGUvbGludXgvZnMuaCBsaW51eC1pb2N0
Yes, indeed.
-
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/