Ok, I realized uselessness of merging this driver... And you brought me to a standstill: > passthrough. In either case, both the ioctl interface and the procfs > interface have no future But what will be after ioctl?
On Saturday 21 March 2015 18:41:42 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 21 March 2015, Sergej Bauer wrote: > > Richard, thanks for your review. > > > > But I still have several notes about driver: > > > > > - You add new proc files, which is not really welcomed. Please consider > > > sysfs. > > That will break a bunch of userspace applications, which use proc-files for > > several years (as long as from 2006 > > year) > > > > > > BTW: Forgot to mention that this sounds like a job for UIO or VFIO. > > And again, you are right. But, again, there a number of applications wich > > use /proc/mkopci/core > > > > But, of course, there may be decided that the kernel main line - this is > > not the place for such a driver. :) > > If the driver is suitable anyway, patch is at the end of this message > > I don't think we should merge the driver with the proposed user interface. > You can either > create a high-level abstraction for MIL-STD-1553, or use UIO or VFIO to > provide a trivial > passthrough. In either case, both the ioctl interface and the procfs > interface have no > future, and existing user space programs need to adapt. > > There is nothing wrong with adding a driver for this hardware, but I'd rather > see it done > properly than having an ad-hoc user space interface that was never reviewed > publically > before it got used by applications. > > Arnd > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
