Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:27:34 +0200 | From | Francois Romieu <> | Subject | Re: RFC: configuring net interfaces |
| |
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@intrepid.pm.waw.pl> écrit : [...] > > Comments welcome. IMHO domain-specific ioctls are a better direction > > than the current make-sockios.h-huge-with-new-ioctls approach. > > I think we should separate two things there: > - the place (files) where SIOCxxx values are defined > - the way we use ioctl call.
(1) and (2) may be related: no sub-ioctl (2) + scattered files (1) = *ouch*
[...] > you have to call it with: > proto = malloc(); > ifreq.name = "qwe0"; > ifreq.data = proto; > (int*)proto = SIOC_SET_FR_PROTO_PARAMETERS; > (fr_protocol)(((int*)proto) + 1).fr_protocol.t391 = 20; > (fr_protocol)(((int*)proto) + 1).fr_protocol.n393 = 5; > ioctl(s, SIOC_FR_PROTO, &ifreq);
Variant: struct sub_req sub;
sub.fr_protocol.t391 = 20; sub.fr_protocol.n293 = 5; sub.sub_ioctl = SIOC_SET_FR_PROTO_PARAMETERS; ifreq.name = "qwe0"; ifreq.data = ⊂ ioctl(s, SIOC_FR_PROTO, &ifreq);
At least it avoids digging at a special position in a structure to know the expected operation and the underlying structure.
struc sub_req { int sub_ioctl; union { struct fr_protocol fr_prot; ... struct xx_protocol xx_prot; } }
struct if_req { int name;
struct sub_req sub; }
It could avoid a flat name-space. Opinion anyone ?
-- Ueimor - 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/
| |