Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 May 2001 13:37:48 -0500 (CDT) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending DeviceNum |
| |
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > If you've got side channels that are of a packet nature (aka commands), > > then they can all happily coexist on one device. If you've got channels > > that are streams or intended for mmap, those ought to be different > > devices. > > Since you've been refering to -9 - care to take a look at the contents of > uart(3)? Or lpt(3). Or draw(3), for that matter.
K - so what? I'm guessing what you want me to see is that these implement multiple channels. Is there a reason that eia001stat couldn't be implemented as
f=open("/dev/eia001ctl",O_RDWR); write(f,"stat\n"); status=read(f); /* returns "stat foo\n" */
We don't want to implement a separate device node for every OOB ioctl that returns data, do we? Why should stat be any different?
/dev/draw is interesting but largely irrelevant. And again, colormap and refresh - why are they not part of ctl? You've got to select on refresh anyway, might as well accept asynchronous messages through ctl.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
- 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/
| |