On Feb 11, 2008 11:43 PM, Gary Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David... > > > I believe it's cleaner and a bit faster, once you don't have to do a > > lot of if's as you do into ioctl(). > > Do you have any way to quantify your assertion? It would seem to me > that traversing some procfs hierarchy is less efficient than using
procfs is not a good place for driver's stuff, but sysfs is. > > ioctl(). Also, (1) is ioctl() really being phased-out, (2) is sysctl > preferred over devfs, and (3) why in either case? Thanks! 1) I don't think it's phased-out. It's needed for driver control. 2) sysfs is a better solution to place some driver's parameters, instead of using ioctl(). But sysfs does not replace it for all situations. 3) It is a cleaner way to configure driver and, sometimes, ioctl() does a lot of if's until reach the right action, while sysfs just avoids it. Br, David Cohen > > -- > Gary Chambers > > // ------------------------------------- > // Advanced SatComm Systems & Operations > // MIT Lincoln Laboratory / 781-981-0957 > // Lexington, Massachusetts > // Nothing fancy and nothing Microsoft > // ------------------------------------- >
