From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 12/12] VMCI: Some header and config files. Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:39:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20121130183918.GA22577__49258.3076506436$1354300788$gmane$org@kroah.com> References: <20121127002357.GA27683@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1481496655.36482563.1354294066563.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20121130170921.GA6247@kroah.com> <1682307.3e6BJPfOqr@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1682307.3e6BJPfOqr@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, Andy King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:20:41AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2012 09:09:21 AM Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:47:46AM -0800, Andy King wrote: > > > I didn't get the resend either, so it seems our corporate mail really is > > > eating messages. Lovely. > > > > > > > > > +#define IOCTLCMD(_cmd) IOCTL_VMCI_ ## _cmd > > > > > > > > > > I don't recall ever getting a valid answer for this (if you did, my > > > > > appologies, can you repeat it). What in the world are you talking > > > > > about here? Why is your driver somehow special from the thousands > > > > > of other ones that use the in-kernel IO macros properly for an > > > > > ioctl? > > > > > > Because we're morons. And unfortunately, we've shipped our product > > > using those broken definitions: our VMX uses them to talk to the driver. > > > So here's what we'd like to do. We will send out a patch soon that > > > fixes the other issues you mention and also adds IOCTL definitions the > > > proper way using _IOBLAH(). But we'd also like to retain these broken > > > definitions for a short period, commented as such, at least until we > > > can get out a patch release to Workstation 9, at which point we can > > > remove them. Does that sound reasonable? > > > > It has been my experience, that when people say "We will remove that api > > sometime in the future", it never happens. So why not just do it now? > > > > Especially given that this code will be coming out in 3.9 at the > > earliest, and that is 6 months away, so that should be plenty of time to > > get this fixed up. > > Our schedule for releasing hosted products is not necessarily aligned > with mainline kernel releases. And kernel developers don't really care about company schedules, nor should they, you know this :) thanks, greg k-h