--On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 02:21:18 PM -0400 Phillip Moore
<[email protected]> wrote:
Well, if this simple patch to the current pioctl can be made without all
that overhead, then someone else can fix this, unfortunately. I thought
this would be relatively simple, and it's a fix I don't really need
personally. Sorry to be selfish...
The real question is: do I need a new pioctl for this? I'm just modifying
the existing code and changing it's behavior.
I think you can safely change the behavior of the existing pioctl in the
way you describe, because your new behavior would be backward-compatible
with existing callers. What you cannot do is assume that every kernel
module you encounter will support your change. Those that do not will fail
with EINVAL if presented with empty input, and will not return the current
value in any case.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
