Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:18:36 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Switching from IOCTLs to a RAMFS |
| |
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>>>>>"Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > >Jeff> Like I touched on in IRC, there is room for both sysfs and per-driver >Jeff> filesystems. > >Jeff> I think just about everyone agrees that ioctls are a bad idea and a huge >Jeff> maintenance annoyance. > >I note that the P1003.26 ballot has just been announced... > > Title: P1003.26: Information Technology -- Portable Operating > System Interface (POSIX) -- Part 26: Device Control > Application Program Interface (API) [C Language] > > Scope: This work will define an application program interface to > device drivers. The interface will be modeled on the > traditional ioctl() function, but will have enhancements > designed to address issues such as "type safety" and > reentrancy. > > >It may be worth looking at what the draft standard says before >committing to yet another interface specification. > >
Already looked at it. It's awful, and retains many of the problems that ioctl(2) presents to kernel maintainers.
I sent a comment in to the only email address I could find describing the issues (politely!), but as a mere peon I doubt it will have much effect. The best we can do is ignore this POSIX junk and hope it goes away...
Jeff
- 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/
| |