I think this simple patch is fine. We could in the future implement an IOCTL type dispatch like we have for syscalls, but that's overkill right now I think.
Nate > I noticed this a few days ago. The names aren't wrong, but they are > architecture specific and currently there is only one set of them defined. > The 'right' way is to split up the ioctl() by ISA, however since all we do > is ignore them, I'm not certain that that effort is required. > > Thanks, > Ali > > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:03:01 +0100, Timothy M Jones <tjon...@inf.ed.ac.uk> > wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> My final post for today, I hope :-P >> >> One of my binaries needed an unimplemented ioctl command code (TCSETAW). >> This patch adds it. >> >> However, I have a question about these codes and their names. At least >> in the kernel I'm looking at (2.6.15), there isn't a TIOCGETA or a >> TIOCGETS which are used in sim/syscall_emul.hh . However, there is a >> TCGETA and TCGETS which I believe is what is meant. Are these names >> wrong and should I change them? (Presumably this would require changing >> all ISAs?) >> >> Cheers >> Tim > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
