From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17c1HB-0005sV-00 for ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:09:17 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <200208050819.40628.rjb@ayrnetworks.com> References: <200208050819.40628.rjb@ayrnetworks.com> To: "Richard J. Broberg" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Is there any interest in providing a query lock to go with lock and unlock? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:09:09 +0100 Message-ID: <14180.1028628549@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: rjb@ayrnetworks.com said: > We have a parochial need which I have met in a heavy handed way by > adding a mtd vector and an ioctl. That makes sense. Change the name to something like test_lock() or is_locked(), and perhaps declare that it shall only take an 'offset' argument which must be the start of a block, rather than doing all the range stuff -- the users can do that themselves if they need it, can't they? -- dwmw2