From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tristan Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:36:15 +0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Ocfs2: Add stuffs associated with ocfs2_info_request ioctls to ioctl.h In-Reply-To: <20091231201059.GB3301@mail.oracle.com> References: <1262247524-26824-1-git-send-email-tristan.ye@oracle.com> <20091231201059.GB3301@mail.oracle.com> Message-ID: <4B41541F.8030704@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Joel Becker wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 04:18:43PM +0800, Tristan Ye wrote: > >> Currently we were adding ioctl cmds/structures for ocfs2 into ocfs2_fs.h >> which was used for define ocfs2 on-disk layout. That sounds a little bit >> confusing, and it can be quickly polluted espcially when growing the >> ocfs2_info_request ioctls afterwards. The appropriate place to kept in-memory >> ioctl structures is ioctl.h I guess. >> > > We want a separate ocfs2_ioctl.h. The definitions of the ioctl > and its structures are things a userspace program would want to use. > ioctl.h, on the other hand, is an internal header for libocfs2. > Oh, I may misunderstand your words, Joel. Did you mean we only split the on-disk layout and ioctls into two parts(ocfs2_fs.h and ocfs2_ioctl.h) in ocfs2-tools for userspace, while kernel part still maintains one ocfs2_fs.h to cover both definitions for on-disk and ioctl strutures? If so, why don't we keep a unification in ocfs2-tools and kernel part? If not, why we need maintain two ioctl headers in kernel part(ioctl.h and ocfs2_ioctl.h)? Tristan. > Joel > >