Re: Why does x86_64 support a SuSE-specific ioctl?

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:20:43PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 05:35, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >  		 */
> > diff -urN linux-2.4.18.tmp/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h linux-2.4.18.SuSE/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
> > --- linux-2.4.18.tmp/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h	Sat May  4 11:37:28 2002
> > +++ linux-2.4.18.SuSE/include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h	Sat May  4 11:37:56 2002
> > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@
> >  #define TIOCGSID	0x5429  /* Return the session ID of FD */
> >  #define TIOCGPTN	_IOR('T',0x30, unsigned int) /* Get Pty Number (of pty-mux device) */
> >  #define TIOCSPTLCK	_IOW('T',0x31, int)  /* Lock/unlock Pty */
> > +#define TIOCGDEV	_IOR('T',0x32, unsigned int) /* Get real dev no below /dev/console */
> >  
> 
> Shouldn't these values be reserved in 2.5 before anything goes into 2.4
> for this - the values finally used might be different

yes it should, just like the MAP_BIGPAGE and several other bits in the
rhas (O_ATOMICLOOKUP etc...):

+#define MAP_BIGPAGE	0x40		/* bigpage mapping */

I attempted doing a sync with mainline for all these potential future
binary-incompatibilities several months ago but it went to /dev/null and
nobody cared to merge these bits into mainline, hopefully this thread
will bring more attention to these kind of patches now.

Andrea