From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:50:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:50:15 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:50887 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:50:01 -0400 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:50:18 GMT Message-Id: <200109041350.NAA56312@vlet.cwi.nl> To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, bcrl@redhat.com Subject: Re: [resend PATCH] reserve BLKGETSIZE64 ioctl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Soon we'll all need a BLKGETSIZE64 ioctl, that gives >> the size of a block device in bytes. > I'd accepted that suggestion Then I am happy (as long as you don't take a reserved number). Concerning policy, of course that is up to Linus - for myself I would prefer adding a well-motivated ioctl above reserving a number. After all, an ioctl is almost always about transporting some small amount of information, hence is implemented by a dozen lines of code or so, clean, and without impact on the rest of the kernel, so if it is going to be added eventually it might as well be added immediately. So, until Linus says otherwise, you might try once or twice to submit the actual ioctl instead of just the reservation. Andries