>>> 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".
How about you just move the existing sim/syscall_emul.hh ioctl function to arch/alpha/linux/process.cc and make alpha use it and then have your version used by all other ISAs. Seems like a reasonable compromise. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
