Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.24] block2mtd: removing a device and typo fixes | | Date | Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:33:38 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, you wrote: > > What about having a /dev/block2mtd (with owner/permissions that > > could allow non-root users to use it), with 2 ioctls: > > > > - one to "link" a block dev to a mtd that would take as > > parameter a fd to an open block dev (again allowing for > > flexible permissions) and would return the number of the > > allocated mtd and success/failure in errno. Upon sucess it > > would increase the refcnt of block2mtd. > > > > - and one to "release" the link. That would fail if the mtd is > > in use and decrease block2mtd's refcnt upon success. > > > > A bit like the loop devices (or /dev/ptmx) actually. What do you > > think? > > Could work. Passing the fd raises several alarm bells. Arnd, any > comments from you?
Given that loop works in this way, I certainly see that as doable, but then I'd vote for using the existing ioctl semantics of LOOP_SET_FD and LOOP_DEL_FD on the mtdchar device, which already comes with an ioctl interface for mtd devices. I'd probably also allow the LOOP_{GET,SET}_STATUS{,64} commands, so you can actually use the existing losetup tool. That way, we wouldn't have to introduce a new API, just extend an existing one to work on more things. Arnd <>< -- 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/
|  |