[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Num

    > > I've seen this question several times in this thread. I haven't seen the
    > > obvious answer, though.
    > >
    > > Have a new system call:
    > >
    > > ctlfd = open_device_control_fd(fd);
    > >
    > > If fd is something that doesn't have a control interface (say, it already
    > > is a control filehandle), this returns an appropriate error code.
    > It may have several. Which one?
    > FWIW, I think that mixing network and device ioctls is a bad idea. These
    > groups are very different and we'd be better off dealing with changes in
    > them separately.
    > For devices... I'd say that fpath(2) (same type as getcwd(2)) would be
    > a good way to deal with that. Or fpath(3) - implemented via readlink(2)
    > on /proc/self/fd/<n>.

    fpath is *wrong* solution, and extremely ugly.

    stty 115200 < /dev/ttyS0 &
    rm /dev/ttyS0

    or even worse

    stty 115200 < /dev/ttyS0 &
    ln -s /dev/ttyS1 /dev/ttyS0

    What I'm trying to show is that with fpath you can no longer delete
    open devices and continue to work with them. I really think that
    open_sub(fd, "control") is right solution.
    I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
    Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:2.252 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site