> On Oct 14, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Could you please open a bugzilla issue for the bug? > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Sure, will do. I was unsure of the effectiveness of that, because I filed a much more serious report about a different issue a couple of weeks ago and have seen no activity or even acknowledgement. > The src change is described as "Expand SMBUS API ...", but in fact it also > _changed_ the existing ioctls. And both binary compatibility and programming > compatibility were broken because of how struct smbcmd was changed. > In FreeBSD we try to not do that without a very strong reason, but alas. > And, as you report, the change was not done entirely correctly. I was also surprised, but it wasn’t really a big deal, and the new structure might be slightly easier to use. There have been other similar things in 11.0, like __mq_oshandle() disappearing, and more .so files needing to be added to our embedded system, so all things considered, it’s been reasonably smooth moving from 10.3 to 11.0. > I see several possibilities now. > > Option 1. Change the documentation to reflect the actual behavior. > In this case data.rdata will remain unusable and unused. No interface > changes. > > Option 2. Redefine SMB_READB, SMB_READW and SMB_PCALL ioctls using _IOWR, so > that data.rdata could be returned from kernel. This seems like a proper fix, > but it is another binary level incompatibility. > > Option 3. Use a horrible hack to discover a userland address of smbcmd and > explicitly copyout to data.rdata. No interface incompatibilities, but it will > be a horrible hack. Besides, not sure how feasible it is. > > Option 4. Revert smb ioctl changes to what they used to be before r281985. > Personally, I would prefer this approach. But now that the new interface is > in > 11.0, it means another interface change just like Option 2. > > I would like to hear other developers' opinions about this situation. Our opinion doesn’t count for much, but I like 2 or 4. Option 1 would essentially obviate the entire purpose of changing the structure. Option 2 basically finishes the job and makes it work properly. Option 3 is, as you say, unappealing. I have no problem with Option 4, obviously we can change our code back to the old way, but assuming there was a good reason for this change in the first place, Option 2 seems more logical. But whatever y’all decide is fine with us, we’ll just change code to match at the appropriate time. Thanks, lew _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"