Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[Shmulik Hen]

On Tuesday 16 September 2003 04:11 am, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:57:26 -0700
> >
> >Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>      My only concern is a matter of timing; we're right at the
> >> end of synchronizing the 2.4 and 2.6 bonding sources.  Once
> >> that's settled (hopefully in a few days, the last patch set for
> >> 2.4 came in this morning), then removing them from that header
> >> and the bonding code should be fine.
> >
> >No problem.  Just push the change to Jeff then after you're
> >done merging stuff around, ok?
>
>         Will do.

I'm on the verge of finishing my cleanup set re-do. Now that Amir sent 
all the synching stuff, I could put that one in as well, and it would 
fit on both 2.4 and 2.6.

-- 
| Shmulik Hen   Advanced Network Services  |
| Israel Design Center, Jerusalem          |
| LAN Access Division, Platform Networking |
| Intel Communications Group, Intel corp.  |

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[Jay Vosburgh]

>On Tuesday 16 September 2003 04:11 am, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:57:26 -0700
>> >
>> >Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >>      My only concern is a matter of timing; we're right at the
>> >> end of synchronizing the 2.4 and 2.6 bonding sources.  Once
>> >> that's settled (hopefully in a few days, the last patch set for
>> >> 2.4 came in this morning), then removing them from that header
>> >> and the bonding code should be fine.
>> >
>> >No problem.  Just push the change to Jeff then after you're
>> >done merging stuff around, ok?
>>
>>         Will do.
>
>I'm on the verge of finishing my cleanup set re-do. Now that Amir sent 
>all the synching stuff, I could put that one in as well, and it would 
>fit on both 2.4 and 2.6.

	I was going to add it on to the end of the clean up set, but
if you want to do it, go ahead.  Nobody seems to have objected to
removing the _OLD stuff, which I view as a good thing.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com

Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[Randy.Dunlap]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]


Hi Max,

I think that we need to ask the netdev people about this...

Thanks,
~Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:49:52 +0200
From: maximilian attems <janitor@sternwelten.at>
To: kj <kernel-janitors@osdl.org>
Cc: 
Subject: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5


heyyy :)

include/linux/if_bonding.h contains:
--- snipp
/*
 * We can remove these ioctl definitions in 2.5.  People should use the
 * SIOC*** versions of them instead
*/
#define BOND_ENSLAVE_OLD                (SIOCDEVPRIVATE)
#define BOND_RELEASE_OLD                (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 1)
#define BOND_SETHWADDR_OLD              (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 2)
#define BOND_SLAVE_INFO_QUERY_OLD       (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 11)
#define BOND_INFO_QUERY_OLD             (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 12)
#define BOND_CHANGE_ACTIVE_OLD          (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 13)
---
their use is very limited mostly in Documentation/networking/ifenslave.c
and drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c

do you consider this as a kj case?
shall they be removed?

thx for your ansers!
a++ maks

[-- Attachment #2: 00000000.mimetmp --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

heyyy :)

include/linux/if_bonding.h contains:
--- snipp
/*
 * We can remove these ioctl definitions in 2.5.  People should use the
 * SIOC*** versions of them instead
*/
#define BOND_ENSLAVE_OLD                (SIOCDEVPRIVATE)
#define BOND_RELEASE_OLD                (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 1)
#define BOND_SETHWADDR_OLD              (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 2)
#define BOND_SLAVE_INFO_QUERY_OLD       (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 11)
#define BOND_INFO_QUERY_OLD             (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 12)
#define BOND_CHANGE_ACTIVE_OLD          (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 13)
---
their use is very limited mostly in Documentation/networking/ifenslave.c
and drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c

do you consider this as a kj case?
shall they be removed?

thx for your ansers!
a++ maks






[-- Attachment #3: 00000001.mimetmp --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 233 bytes --]

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:52:25 -0700
"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:

> I think that we need to ask the netdev people about this...

If the current generation of the bonding userland tools
have stopped using these older ioctl values, yes we should
kill them from the entire kernel tree.

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[Jay Vosburgh]

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:52:25 -0700
>"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:
>
>> I think that we need to ask the netdev people about this...
>
>If the current generation of the bonding userland tools
>have stopped using these older ioctl values, yes we should
>kill them from the entire kernel tree.

	The current user and kernel bonding code both still use these,
although I agree that they can go away (the versions of bonding old
enough to still need them are very old indeed).  I don't see a need to
keep them in 2.4, either, as the real SIOCBONDwhatever ioctls date
back at least two years.

	My only concern is a matter of timing; we're right at the end
of synchronizing the 2.4 and 2.6 bonding sources.  Once that's settled
(hopefully in a few days, the last patch set for 2.4 came in this
morning), then removing them from that header and the bonding code
should be fine.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:57:26 -0700
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 	My only concern is a matter of timing; we're right at the end
> of synchronizing the 2.4 and 2.6 bonding sources.  Once that's settled
> (hopefully in a few days, the last patch set for 2.4 came in this
> morning), then removing them from that header and the bonding code
> should be fine.

No problem.  Just push the change to Jeff then after you're
done merging stuff around, ok?

Re: Fw: [Kernel-janitors] old ioctl definitions in 2.5

[Jay Vosburgh]

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:57:26 -0700
>Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> 	My only concern is a matter of timing; we're right at the end
>> of synchronizing the 2.4 and 2.6 bonding sources.  Once that's settled
>> (hopefully in a few days, the last patch set for 2.4 came in this
>> morning), then removing them from that header and the bonding code
>> should be fine.
>
>No problem.  Just push the change to Jeff then after you're
>done merging stuff around, ok?

	Will do.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com