linux-kernel - Re: pcmcia_ioctl.c compile error

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080429151233.401a9330.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:12:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	rdunlap@...otime.net, harvey.harrison@...il.com, bunk@...nel.org,
	den@...nvz.org, linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
	adobriyan@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pcmcia_ioctl.c compile error

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:56:20 +0100
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:38:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:15:20 -0700
> > Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > I believe Russell is referring to the removal of the ioctl, not the
> > > > > compile breakage.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > That would be interesting information (although I have a vague feeling that
> > > > it has been discussed before).
> > > 
> > > Yes:  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/27/291
> > > (now that Harvey reminded me/us)
> > 
> > oh, OK, whatever, that's easy.  I dropped the old patch and queued this
> > one:
> 
> I'll spend some time this coming weekend working out precisely what it
> requires from the ioctl interface - maybe we can have a cut-down ioctl
> interface that bolts straight on as an "add on" to the new controls
> without being too invasive, while still allowing its PCMCIA bits to
> work.

umm, well,

a) as your machine still needed the ioctl code, we can assume that there
   are others out there.  So it's unclear that we _can_ delete it, or change
   its interfaces.

b) the rate of change in that code is very close to zero.  I'd say just let
   it be.  It's not a good use of one's time?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/