Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2001 07:56:34 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Num |
| |
Hi!
> > 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. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/
|  |