On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Vince Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > >> For TTY-related ioctls, returning ENOTTY is the right behavior, so >> there's no need to print a warning. To me it's a step backward to >> start printing a warning for something that we're actually handling >> correctly. If we're not properly identifying which ioctls are >> TTY-related, I'd rather try and fix that than paper over it. > > The problem with the current ioctl handler is that it is very Alpha-linux > specific, which is based on the Tru64 syscall handler. So the way the > code is now, we'd either have to special case the Alpha code, or else > provide defines for IOCTL values that don't exist on any other Linux > version (mainly the weird BSD tty ioctls). So not something that's > impossible to fix, just something that requires some work to do properly.
Yea, I think it boils down to the gap between "the right way to do it" and "what we have time for". Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
