On Wednesday 27 September 2006 17:03, John Baldwin wrote:
> Eh? You just changed ioctl values breaking ABI all over the place, e.g.
> sys/pioctl.h. The size field changed from 0 to sizeof(int) meaning
> different ioctl values and thus ABI breakage.
Bah, I see you did add compat hacks for the old ioctls. I don't see why we
don't just fix the original ioctls to just use IOCPARM_IVAL() and be done
with it, why do we have to add _IOWINT() and other hacks?
> Plus, what if you have:
>
> struct foo {
> int bar;
> };
>
> #define FOOIO _IOW('y', 0, struct foo)
>
> that's going to have the same issue isn't it?
Ok, see now why this works. This is only for ioctl's that use int w/o
specifying it (i.e. take an int directly instead of pointer to int).
> I think instead the various ioctl handlers have to realize that for IOC_VOID
> ioctls declared using _IO() data is a (caddr_t *), not an (int *) (the uap
> struct for ioctl clearly defines data as a caddr_t). Fix whatever crap you
> have to in the kernel to deal with it, but don't change the userland ABI. :(
I still think doing this (via IOCPARM_IVAL()) is best and is probably a much
smaller diff.
--
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
