linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v5] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver

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]

Date:	Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:48:58 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
CC:	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, arnd@...db.de, kumar.gala@...escale.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, greg@...ah.com, akpm@...nel.org,
	cmetcalf@...era.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dsaxena@...aro.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-console@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v5] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor
 management driver

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 ***
--
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/