On 09/05/2011 01:03 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 11:11:36AM +0800, Jeff liu wrote:
在 2011-9-2，下午11:48， David Sterba 写道：
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:13:34PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
--- a/ioctl.h
+++ b/ioctl.h
@@ -140,6 +140,8 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_space_args {
struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
#define BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 4, \
struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
+#define BTRFS_IOC_FS_SETLABEL _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 5, \
+ struct btrfs_ioctl_fs_label_args)
/* trans start and trans end are dangerous, and only for
* use by applications that know how to avoid the
* resulting deadlocks
well, it is an unassigned number, but a newly added features should IMHO
allocate greater than current max value, ie over 31 in coordination with
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#Development_notes.2C_please_read
table.
It sounds reasonable to allocate a greater value, could anyone please confirm
it?
I'd just take number 50 for yours -- Li can update his patches
later.
Thank you, I'll post a patch for this change later.
-Jeff
Hugo.
What's your ioctl range for online fsck?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
