Re: [stable] [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-11-13 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the > > struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no > > reason to continue

Re: [stable] [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-11-13 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no reason to continue maintaining

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-15 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the > struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no > reason to continue maintaining the fiction that the 32-bit and 64-bit > ioctls are in some way

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-15 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no reason to continue maintaining the fiction that the 32-bit and 64-bit ioctls are in some way

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-14 Thread Alasdair G Kergon
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:16:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > This change seems rather bogus, you're changing the ABI just to work > around a bug in the compat_ioctl layer. Why not just do the compat > code the right way, like the patch below? The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-14 Thread Alasdair G Kergon
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:16:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: This change seems rather bogus, you're changing the ABI just to work around a bug in the compat_ioctl layer. Why not just do the compat code the right way, like the patch below? The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-12 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Friday 12 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > Make size of dm_ioctl struct always 312 bytes on all supported > architectures. > > This change retains compatibility with already-compiled code because > it uses an embedded offset to locate the payload that follows the > structure. > > On

[2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-12 Thread Alasdair G Kergon
From: Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make size of dm_ioctl struct always 312 bytes on all supported architectures. This change retains compatibility with already-compiled code because it uses an embedded offset to locate the payload that follows the structure. On 64-bit architectures there is

[2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-12 Thread Alasdair G Kergon
From: Milan Broz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make size of dm_ioctl struct always 312 bytes on all supported architectures. This change retains compatibility with already-compiled code because it uses an embedded offset to locate the payload that follows the structure. On 64-bit architectures there is no

Re: [2.6.24 PATCH 02/25] dm io:ctl use constant struct size

2007-10-12 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Friday 12 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: Make size of dm_ioctl struct always 312 bytes on all supported architectures. This change retains compatibility with already-compiled code because it uses an embedded offset to locate the payload that follows the structure. On 64-bit