Prev: mm: Consider the entire user address space during node migration
Next: [PATCH] x86:hpet.c: Changed delayed_work to work when delay is 0
From: Dominik Brodowski on 15 May 2010 11:00 Russell, On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 03:46:39PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 04:37:05PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > Russell, > > > > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 03:24:10PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:00:48AM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > Furthermore, the last legitimate use of the ioctl to be reported > > > > relates to the ARM architecture in 2008.[1] Attempts to resolve > > > > this issue turned out unsuccessful so far.[2] Other usages have only > > > > been reported as hear-say. If there are any legitiate and necessary > > > > use-cases remaining, please speak out before the end of the grace > > > > period until 2.6.3{5,6}(-rc1). > > > > > > What's the point of speaking out? You don't take any notice of people > > > who do, and you continue your crusade of wanting to remove it. Please, > > > stop giving the impression that you give a damn of what people say about > > > the ioctl interface. > > > > The _only_ person who really has spoken out is you. All my requests to > > actually see source code or actual use cases (e.g. which parts of the ioctl > > do actually get called) did not lead to _anything_. > > See the source code? You clearly haven't been reading what I've been > saying to you on the subject if you think I can produce source code. > I've already explained this to you several times, but it seems to be > constantly ignored. That's why there is the _other_ alternative: "actual use cases (e.g. which parts of the ioctl do actually get called)". For this, you only need to be able to update/modify the kernel. More than two years ago, you signalised to do exactly this: | I'll spend some time this coming weekend working out precisely what it | requires from the ioctl interface - maybe we can have a cut-down ioctl | interface that bolts straight on as an "add on" to the new controls | without being too invasive, while still allowing its PCMCIA bits to | work. [ http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2008-April/005450.html ] I haven't heard anything about the result of this experiment, even though asking a number of times (e.g. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2010-January/006740.html ). Best, Dominik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |