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 17:43:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:43:39 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:3998 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:43:27 -0400 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:43:43 GMT Message-Id: <200109042143.VAA57901@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 From bcrl@redhat.com Tue Sep 4 22:54:05 2001 On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > Then I am happy (as long as you don't take a reserved number). So the patch below is okay? Roughly speaking, yes. (But why do you insist on using 110? I wrote "A jump here: 108-111 have been used" because that is what I recall: three groups using 108-109 and one shifting to 110-111. I have no details, so may misremember, but still..) Andries