lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: Ioctl v2
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > I want to circulate this and get some comments and feedback, and if
> > no one raises any serious objections - I'd love to get collaborators
> > to work on this with me. Flame away!
>
> Hi Kent
>
> I doubt you will get much interest from netdev. netdev already
> considers ioctl as legacy, and mostly uses netlink and a message
> passing structure, which is easy to extend in a backwards compatible
> manor.

The more I look at netlink the more I wonder what on earth it's targeted at or
was trying to solve. It must exist for a reason, but I've written a few ioctls
myself and I can't fathom a situation where I'd actually want any of the stuff
netlink provides.

Why bother with getting a special socket type? Why asynchronous messages with
all the marshalling/unmarshalling that entails?

From what I've seen all we really want is driver private syscalls, and the
things about ioctls that suck are where it's _not_ like syscalls. Let's just
make it work more like normal function calls.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-21 18:47    [W:0.093 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site