[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectMy HDLC patch and the recent discussion...

Does anybody have additional comments on the HDLC (SIOCDEVICE etc)?

A copy of my previous lkml message follows.
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator

Jeff Garzik <> writes:

> "SIOCDEVICE" as a constant is unacceptable, so it would need to be
> SIOCWANDEVICE or something similar.

Well, I was probably under impression it should be used for Ethernet
as well (see the Dec 2000 thread)... Now I think I know people
using Ethernet (with full duplex over SM fibre) for WAN connections
- so SIOCWANDEVICE is ok. Not sure about TR, though - anyone using
it for WAN networking?

> SIOCETHTOOL, for example, is an ioctl which actually provides
> sub-ioctls, so that is probably a good model to follow.

SIOCDEVICE^WSIOCWANDEVICE of course has sub-ioctls as well. It is
obviously impossible without them.

I do _not_ want to fight any ETHTOOL vs SIOCDEVICE etc. battle here.
What I want is creating the best interface for controlling network
devices. Including Token Ring and Ethernet, unless there are valid
reasons to do otherwise.

I think we should concentrate on the interface first, then I will
patch the HDLC implementation.

If we're here... maybe we should really drop using the ifreq structure
and _replace_ it with better one (variable-sized)? It can be done
gradually, as both are quite compatible.
Krzysztof Halasa
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 13:24    [W:0.033 / U:10.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site