Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753880AbYLHPwM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:52:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752837AbYLHPv5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:51:57 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.177]:60361 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752632AbYLHPv4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:51:56 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: dedekind@infradead.org Subject: Re: UBI/DVB ioctl conflict? Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:50:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Laurent Pinchart , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Josh Boyer , v4l-dvb-maintainer@linuxtv.org, LKML References: <20081207095811.13b51cca@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <200812081041.14178.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <1228729915.13686.95.camel@sauron> In-Reply-To: <1228729915.13686.95.camel@sauron> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812081650.54346.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/6DYJr5RhUdHpA0VEi6hhVea9dOY/ELD25ixv 21CP6m6l+sAkpQvKIaUm+H64FLlIrB+2qvexDH02pb69Qz2rD5 ZbUzc28aONQ1pkZnhxBZA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1472 Lines: 33 On Monday 08 December 2008, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:41 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this only matters for devices that would > > implement both the UBI and DVB API on the same inode ? That would be quite > > unlikely. > > Yeah, I guess. But this anyway makes sense to keep ioctls > non-overlapping. We try hard (but sometimes fail) to keep every ioctl number unique. The reason for this is that the device drivers are not the only pieces of code that look at them. Specifically, three other things frequently cause problems here: * strace wants to know about ioctl numbers so that it can show the arguments in a meaningful way when tracing a program. * the original 64 bit emulation for ioctl numbers in fs/compat_ioctl.c assumes that it should translate specific calls in a given way. This is not important if both device drivers handle all their ioctls through their own ->compat_ioctl file operation. * A number of binary emulation layers try to convert between different formats (endianess, word size, ioctl numbers). The most common ones are Linux-on-BSD, x86-on-ia64, x86-on-powerpc and Unix-on-Linux emulation layers in user space. Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/