Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:15:03 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Generic ioctl and ether_ioctl don't agree Message-ID: <20070315111503.GD28354@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20070314150138.GC56444@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20070314102023.GB1766@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070314150138.GC56444@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:01:38AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:20:23PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Quite a while ago I noticed that our ioctl handlers get the ioctl > > command via u_long, but ether_ioctl()'s command argument is int. > > This disarray dates back to 1998, when ioctl functions started to > > take u_long as the command, but ether_ioctl() was never fixed. > > Fortunately, our ioctl command coding still fits in 32 bits, or > > else we would've got problems on 64-bit arch'es already. I'd like > > to fix this long-standing bug some day after RELENG_7 is branched. > > Of course, this will break ABI to network modules on all 64-bit > > arch'es. BTW, the same applies to other L2 layers, such as firewire, > > which seems to have been cloned from if_ethersubr.c. > > > > Any objections or comments? Thanks! > > Why wait? We're allowed to break module ABIs in current at any time and > there's no chance modules built on RELENG_6 will work on RELENG_7 > trees anyway. Perhaps I was over-conservative. :-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070315111503.GD28354>