On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:24:25PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:42:35AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Sharing the ioctl value seems to have happened by mistake and is
uncommon, but IMHO now it's too late to change this interface just for
esthetical reasons.
24 has been assigned to both BTRFS_IOC_START_SYNC and
BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_CREATE_V2,
and BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_CREATE_V2 is at least used in btrfs-progs
while BTRFS_IOC_START_SYNC is not.
21 is free according to link[1], and seems safe to be assigned to
BTRFS_IOC_START_SYNC.
[1]:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:01:19 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
24 has been assigned to both BTRFS_IOC_START_SYNC and
BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_CREATE_V2,
and BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_CREATE_V2 is at least used in btrfs-progs
while BTRFS_IOC_START_SYNC is not.
21 is free according to link[1], and seems safe to be
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:42:35AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Sharing the ioctl value seems to have happened by mistake and is
uncommon, but IMHO now it's too late to change this interface just for
esthetical reasons.
Agreed, it's part of ABI, ioctl.h is append only.
--
To unsubscribe from
