Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Nonotify 0.3.2 (A simple dnotify replacement) | From | nf <> | Date | Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:34:24 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 14:29, Pascal Schmidt wrote: > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:40:06 +0200, you wrote in linux.kernel: > > > 2) The /dev/nonotify device: > > > > /dev/nonotify has the only purpose to offer a special stat() call via > > ioctl to read the contents_mtime field of directories (together with > > atime, mtime, ctime). The client has to set the 'filename' field of the > > 'nonotify_stat' structure and receives the four timespec fields updated > > via ioctl. > > A lot of people here (Linus, for instance) frown on ioctl() interfaces. > They're hard to do right in 32/64bit compat layers, for example. How > about using a syscall interface instead?
Nonotify uses ioctl mainly for 'pragmatical' reasons. A syscall would be technically better - that's for sure, actually it was my initial idea to use one (or to change the stat-call).
But i didn't want to bother people with asking to assign me a syscall-number before even knowing if they like my idea. And changing it to use a syscall lateron would be no problem at all from the concept of nonotify.
Also - as a kernel newbie - i didn't find any good documentation how to add my own syscall into the kernel. I just wanted to get nonotify working as an 'optional patch', without changing tons of files.
But you could help me if you have a look at my ioctl function. I'm using a structure which contains a char* pointer and four timespec fields. Do you know if this causes problems with 32/64bit compatibility.
Thanks,
Norbert
- 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/
| |