On 06/09/11 12:47, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> +enum fsl_hv_ioctl_cmd {
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_PARTITION_RESTART = _IOWR(0, 1, struct
>>>> fsl_hv_ioctl_restart),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_PARTITION_GET_STATUS = _IOWR(0, 2, struct
>>>> fsl_hv_ioctl_status),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_PARTITION_START = _IOWR(0, 3, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_start),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_PARTITION_STOP = _IOWR(0, 4, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_stop),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_MEMCPY = _IOWR(0, 5, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_memcpy),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_DOORBELL = _IOWR(0, 6, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_doorbell),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_GETPROP = _IOWR(0, 7, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_prop),
>>>> + FSL_HV_IOCTL_SETPROP = _IOWR(0, 8, struct fsl_hv_ioctl_prop),
>>>> +};
>
>> Missing an entry in Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt for 0 (with
>> conflict!).
>
> If I change it from 0, I'm going to break binary compatibility with our apps.
> I
> agree that maybe I shouldn't have picked 0, but considering how many conflicts
> there already are, I wonder what the point is. Even if I pick a number that
> is
> currently not listed in the chart, that doesn't mean that it's actually not
> being used, or that it won't conflict in the future.
Yes, I understood that.
> So is it okay to stick with 0, or do I need to pick a new number?
I wasn't suggesting that you change the 0, just note that it has conflicts,
like other ioctls do.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
