On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:59:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Apparently, if the Linux kernel driver guys renumber some ioctls, the > > right thing is for everybody's apps to break instantly. > Err, brainfart -- scratch that point. Obviously this happens no matter > where they're defined, because they're expanded at build time. > > ...which does, actually, leave me wondering why app writers should > bother defining them at all. The numbers belong to the kernel; why > don't we keep them there? If the kernel revs in such a way as to break > ioctl numbers, there's no userland way around it, is there? The kernel doesn't change ioctl numbers; they're actually competent at maintaining their interfaces. OTOH, they don't consider their headers such an interface, and they're happy to have them break randomly or not work from userspace at all or anything. What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates such things and lets anyone use it... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Vote  Bdale!
Description: PGP signature