On Sat, 28 May 2011 12:46:05 -0500 Pino Toscano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh, sorry if it broke something, it was not intended. It part of the > original patch set done by Samuel, which I trusted (as he is a Hurd > developer and Debian/Hurd maintainer). Oh, certainly. These things happen :) > - do the semi-ugly solution an define VIOC_SYSCALL_PROC differently on > Hurd (see also [1], "missing _IOT" section, for an explanation of what > can and cannot be done in ioctl's on Hurd). I attached a new version of > patch 043_hurd_ioctl. Sure, it looks like that will work. From the perspective of OpenAFS and other AFS implementations, it is a little annoying to have to make a special case for Hurd for the ioctl number if and when Hurd support is added... but I'd expect a lot of things to require Hurd special-cases, anyway. Will this be sent to Heimdal upstream, btw? This probably would have gotten noticed sooner if this had been sent there, and I don't know if they have opinions on this. > [1] http://www.gnu.org/s/hurd/hurd/porting/guidelines.html Thanks! -- Andrew Deason [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
