From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] scsi: Remove scsi_ioctl.h Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:05:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20150109090502.GA21959@lst.de> References: <1420746479-25949-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1420746479-25949-4-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1420749302.5830.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35811 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755883AbbAIJFG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 04:05:06 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1420749302.5830.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Andy Grover , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:35:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > What's the transition plan for userspace? If you look at glibc > currently, it supplies both scsi.h and scsi_ioctl.h. If we're > persuading the glibc folks to go with our versions from uapi, I think > removing a file which is an effective compile breaker for userspace i= s a > really bad idea. Duplicating scsi_ioctl.h definitions in scsi.h woul= d > also cause them problems. I thought about this a wh=D1=96le ago, and I think reusing scsi/*.h is = a bad idea exactly because glibc provides old versions of these. I'd suggest adding a linux/uapi/scsi_ioctl.h instead. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html