[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: I.1 - System calls - ioctl

    > I/ General API comments
    > 1/ System calls
    > * ioctl()
    > You have defined 5 ioctls() so far to operate on an existing
    > event. I was under the impression that ioctl() should not be
    > used except for drivers.
    > How do you justify your usage of ioctl() in this context?

    We can certainly do a separate sys_perf_counter_ctrl() syscall - and
    we will do that if people think the extra syscall slot is worth it
    in this case.

    The (mild) counter-argument so far was that the current ioctls are
    very simple over "IO" attributes of counters:

    - enable
    - disable
    - reset
    - refresh
    - set-period

    So they could be considered 'IO controls' in the classic sense and
    act as a (mild) exception to the 'dont use ioctls' rule.

    They are not some weird tacked-on syscall functionality - they
    modify the IO properties of counters: on/off, value and rate. If
    they go beyond that we'll put it all into a separate syscall and
    deprecate the ioctl (which will have a relatively short half-time
    due to the tools being hosted in the kernel repo).

    This could happen right now in fact, if people think it's worth it.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-22 13:53    [W:0.020 / U:50.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site