Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:52:30 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: bitkeeper / IDE cleanup |
| |
Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: >>Plese note that the mail in wich I did send this particular patch >>didn't contain the cleanup term. >> > > You forgot to check the Subject line. > > >>I would rather have a true lean *abstract* ioctl/sysctl >>based interface >> > > I very much distrust the possibility of defining any abstract interface. > For special purpose things one just wants to send certain commands and > data to the disk, and user space knows which commands and what data, > and the kernel doesn't, so has to allow user space access.
Well then please answer the following:
1. Why do Windwos, FreeBSD, Darwin and Solrais provide generic hooks for device probing, powerstate handing and so on?
2. Why do they get away with an interface half the complexity of the linx IDE ioctl mess?
3. Why do we have something like genric cdrom ioctl handling layer, which is basically just adding the above hooks?
Actually Alan Cox convinced me that it still makes sense to have a IOCTL_ATA_DRIVE_TAKE_ME_HARD_FROM_THE_REAR, but I still don't see any argument in favour of the current half-finished code behind HDIO_DRIVE_TASKFILE, which even by concept doesn't provide a true backdoor for "vendor specific" mess, due to the misguided attempts for command format parsing found there.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |