Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:22:49 +0400 | Subject | Re: Idea: Feature information / extensions dispatcher syscall. | From | Igor Zhbanov <> |
| |
2009/4/22 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>: >> But in some cases syscalls are more convenient than reading/writing/ioctling >> in /proc, /sys or /dev. > > A syscall and an ioctl are the same thing except that you need a file > handle for one of them. > >> And I suggest to regulate syscalls usage and reserve a set of numbers >> "home" modules used in some organizations only. > > We have file system naming so you can open device or sysfs and the like > files to do that job. That avoids the problem of trying to keep numbering > sane.
Yes, you need a file handle. To open device each time you need to make ioctl is expensive and keeping device opened may prevent unmounting /proc that could be a problem in some installations if that application is used at a boot time.
| |