Hi Johannes,
This is part of the reason I'm asking this question. Some time ago, I
allocated 128 slots from Documentation/ioctl-number.txt using 'N'. I've yet to
use any of them. But before I release the next version of the driver into the
kernel, I wan't to clean up the "illegal" ioctl's.
Documentation/ioctl-number.txt claims that all of 'U' is allocated for USB.
So are we suballocating 'U' in any way? If so, I'd like to join in and give
up my claim on 'N' - just seems cleaner that way.
Regards,
/\/elson
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2001, David Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm in the process of also cleaning up the IOCTL's in scanner.c. I had
> > "registered" for 128 (way overboard!) using 'N' but also see an entry for
> > 'U' for use by USB. Do we have an official allocation scheme/blocks
> > somewhere?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, only usbdevfs is the only one using 'U' (0-21).
> > I'd like to use 32-48. Is that Ok? Or, do we have an official allocation
> > scheme/block assingments somewhere?
>
> Documentation/ioctl-number.txt
>
> A quick snippet:
>
> "If you are writing a driver for a new device and need a letter, pick an
> unused block with enough room for expansion: 32 to 256 ioctl commands.
> You can register the block by patching this file and submitting the
> patch to Linus Torvalds. Or you can e-mail me at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> I'll register one for you."
>
> If you're creating a custom kernel interface, you're probably better off
> doing the driver in userspace since a kernel driver doesn't have any
> advantages and a couple of disadvantages.
>
> JE
>
>
--
~~ ** ~~ UNIX remains, to this very day, a dark endless maze of ~~ ** ~~
catwalks and mantraps, an eternal hard-hat area that
kills the foolish and shelters the brave. (UNIX Manifesto)
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
