From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun  9 17:25:53 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3ECD016A4CE; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 17:25:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DF4C43D31; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 17:25:52 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i59HPfXD056599;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:25:42 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:02:24 MDT."
             <40C742A0.5090704@freebsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:25:41 +0200
Message-ID: <56598.1086801941@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:25:53 -0000

In message <40C742A0.5090704@freebsd.org>, Scott Long writes:

>> 	cdevsw->ioctl() takes a caddr_t pointer argument which
>> 	really should be a void *, do we want to change that
>> 	as well (since it is all the same files we'll have to
>> 	change).
>> 
>
>Is this going to have any consequences on COMPAT_LINUX code or anything
>else that calls ioctl() through obscure means?

Well, it has more impact for the places which implement the ioctl,
in particular if they do pointer arithmetic on the pointer (legal
on caddr_t but illegal on void *).

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.