Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Darren Reed wrote: > >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >> >> >>> The IOCPARM_MASK removal was covered by PSARC case 2008/343. I'm >>> thinking that MAXIOCBSZ is not a documented API, isn't used >>> *anywhere* outside of the files I'm removing it from here (according >>> to Google at least) -- apart from automatically generated Perl and >>> Python files (generated from the header files), so I think I can >>> probably get away without an ARC case for it. If anyone else on the >>> recipient list feels different, let me know -- I can file an >>> auto-approval case pretty trivially. (Mostly I didn't file the case >>> just to avoid the 1 week timeout that such normally incurs, >>> particularly since this seems pretty obvious at this point.) >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> I think a fast track would be worthwhile, especially since you're >> increasing the structure size allowed for ioctls which really does >> mean that you're changing an interface. Auto-approved seems >> to be appropriate? >> > > > Actually, I'm changing the size *allowed*. I'm changing the fact that > the attached data will arrive as a single contiguous mblk, rather than > broken across several smaller linked mblks.
So, you're making a compatible change to two interfaces then: 1. streams ioctls 2. ioctl(2) The other thing to catch would be if anywhere defines the max size in documentation (for people writing new ioctls) but I didn't see anything obvious when searching earlier. > That said if you still believe a self-review case should be filed, > then I'll do it. Yup. Darren _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
