From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: ioctl number overlapped?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:51:47 +0300
Message-ID: <20090721065146.GW5638@redhat.com>
References: <200907211446.44873.sheng.yang@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: "Yang, Sheng" <sheng.yang@intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55283 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754526AbZGUGvs (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:51:48 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200907211446.44873.sheng.yang@intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 02:46:44PM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
> Happen to see this:
> 
> include/linux.kvm.h
> 
> 503 #define KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS       _IOWR(KVMIO, 0x67, struct kvm_irq_level)
> 504 #define KVM_REGISTER_COALESCED_MMIO \
> 505                         _IOW(KVMIO,  0x67, struct kvm_coalesced_mmio_zone)
> 
> Both ioctl use 0x67, and the code has released to v2.6.30...
> 
I don't think they are really overlapping. One of them is RW another W
(haven't checked if the structure sizeof is different).

--
			Gleb.