On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:33:40PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
>> @@ -316,12 +316,6 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_search_args_v2 {
>> __u64 buf[0]; /* out - found items */
>> };
>>
>> -struct btrfs_ioctl_clone_range_args {
>> - __s64 src_fd;
>> - __u64 src_offset, src_length;
>> - __u64 dest_offset;
>> -};
>
> For backward compatibility and not-breaking-builds reasons, do not
> remove anything from this file.
>
Got you. I'll keep it unchanged in the next version.
>> -
>> /* flags for the defrag range ioctl */
>> #define BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_COMPRESS 1
>> #define BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_START_IO 2
>> @@ -548,7 +542,6 @@ static inline char *btrfs_err_str(enum btrfs_err_code err_code)
>> #define BTRFS_IOC_TRANS_END _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 7)
>> #define BTRFS_IOC_SYNC _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 8)
>>
>> -#define BTRFS_IOC_CLONE _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, int)
>
> The ioctl definition reuses the BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC (0x94), which is IMHO
> wrong.
>
I thought it breaks ABI if we choose a different value for the type
field of the ioctl. Am I misunderstanding it?
Thanks,
Tao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
