Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:45:43 +0300 | From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel |
| |
Hello! Quoting r. Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) "Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel": > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:37:02PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hello! > > Quoting r. Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) "Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel": > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:25:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > It may help your module, but won't solve the general problem shorter > > > > > term. > > > > But longer term it will be better, so why not go there? > > > > Once the infrastructure is there, drivers will be able to be > > > > migrated as required. > > > > > > I have no problems with that. You would need two new entry points: > > > one 64bit one without BKL and a 32bit one also without BKL. > > > > > > I think there were some objections to this scheme in the past, > > > but I cannot think of a good alternative. > > > > > > > Maybe one entry point with a flag? > > That would be IMHO far uglier than two. > > -Andi >
What would be a good name? ioctl32/ioctl64? ioctl_compat/ioctl_native?
- 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/
| |