Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Iain Hibbert
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, der Mouse wrote: > >>int ioctl(int, unsigned long, ...); > > > Most of our ioctl's take pointer arguments. Some streams ioctls > > though take int arguments (ioctl(fd, I_FLUSH, FLUSHR) for example) > > and using void * as the argument would not compile cleanly. > > Mu

locking around LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO

2010-12-19 Thread NAKAJIMA Yoshihiro
Hello LFS developers, When vmlocking2 was merged, lock and unlock were moved out of LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO. : % diff -U4 lfs.h:1.{122,123} | sed -n 94,104p : #define LFS_SET_UINO(ip, flags) do { \ : - simple_lock(&(ip)->i_lfs->lfs_interlock);

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Paul Goyette
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christos Zoulas wrote: In article , Paul Goyette wrote: Is there some reason why there is a discrepancy in the definition of ioctl()? From man page ioctl(2) SYNOPSIS #include int ioctl(int d, unsigned long request, void *

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Christos Zoulas
On Dec 19, 8:00am, p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) wrote: -- Subject: Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h | Should the man page be updated to match reality? I just did. christos

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread David Laight
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:06:15PM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > Is there some reason why there is a discrepancy in the definition of > ioctl()? > > >From man page ioctl(2) ... >ioctl(int d, unsigned long request, void *argp); > Yet, from sys/ioctl.h we have ... > int ioctl(i

freebsd 5.99.41 as XEN3_DOMU

2010-12-19 Thread Robert Boyer
I am having a bit of trouble given that I am not super familiar with NetBSD (although I hope that will change). Just compiled netbsd-current in XEN domain installed userland and all the new kernel modules in the DOMU root file system, booted the new kernel and everything works great except for

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Rhialto
On Sun 19 Dec 2010 at 19:32:49 +, David Laight wrote: > I suspect the only form that will work is soemthing like: > > int ioctl(int, unsigned long, void *); > #define ioctl(fd, cmd, arg) ioctl(fd, cmd, (void *)(intptr_t)(arg)) Easier: the aforementioned constant FLUSHR (and all others) can be

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread David Laight
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 09:06:31PM +0100, Rhialto wrote: > > Easier: the aforementioned constant FLUSHR (and all others) can be > defined as ((void *)1234) (for appropriate values of 1234). FLUSHR (and FLUSHW) have to be numbers - they are bit patterns and can be or'ed together. > However, we do

Re: freebsd 5.99.41 as XEN3_DOMU

2010-12-19 Thread Manuel Bouyer
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:35:08PM -0500, Robert Boyer wrote: > I am having a bit of trouble given that I am not super familiar with NetBSD > (although I hope that will change). > > Just compiled netbsd-current in XEN domain installed userland and all the new > kernel modules in the DOMU root fi

Re: freebsd 5.99.41 as XEN3_DOMU

2010-12-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Manuel Bouyer writes: > Well, in the current state, modules are a not enabled in the Xen kernels > (modules should be built specifically for Xen, but the build tools do not > allow this right now). So you have to compile all what you need in a > monolitic kernel. But ZFS is only available as mod

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread der Mouse
> There is a bigger problem, the 'int' and 'void *' arguments might be > passed in different ways then '...' is specified. True, but it is not inherently a problem; it just complicates the implementation of ioctl(), since it then has to not just pass down a data pointer, but pass down enough infor

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article <20101219200631.gc14...@falu.nl>, Rhialto wrote: >On Sun 19 Dec 2010 at 19:32:49 +, David Laight wrote: >> I suspect the only form that will work is soemthing like: >> >> int ioctl(int, unsigned long, void *); >> #define ioctl(fd, cmd, arg) ioctl(fd, cmd, (void *)(intptr_t)(arg))

Re: locking around LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO

2010-12-19 Thread Eduardo Horvath
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, NAKAJIMA Yoshihiro wrote: > Hello LFS developers, > > > When vmlocking2 was merged, lock and unlock were moved out of > LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO. > > : % diff -U4 lfs.h:1.{122,123} | sed -n 94,104p > : #define LFS_SET_UINO(ip, flags) do { >

re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread matthew green
> On Sun 19 Dec 2010 at 19:32:49 +, David Laight wrote: > > I suspect the only form that will work is soemthing like: > > > > int ioctl(int, unsigned long, void *); > > #define ioctl(fd, cmd, arg) ioctl(fd, cmd, (void *)(intptr_t)(arg)) > > Easier: the aforementioned constant FLUSHR (and all

Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

2010-12-19 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article <20474.1292802...@splode.eterna.com.au>, matthew green wrote: > >> On Sun 19 Dec 2010 at 19:32:49 +, David Laight wrote: >> > I suspect the only form that will work is soemthing like: >> > >> > int ioctl(int, unsigned long, void *); >> > #define ioctl(fd, cmd, arg) ioctl(fd, cmd,

Consistent WARN_REFERENCES for assembler

2010-12-19 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
Hi all, unless there are objections, I am going to commit the attached patch soon. It replaces the use of stabs for WARN_REFERENCES in assembler code with the modernish .gnu.warning sections. Platforms that already used this now consistently use .pushsection / .popsection. Joerg Index: alpha/inclu