On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:57:41PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote: > > > > I still do not want/understand the need to create new ioctls for this > > > > driver. If you rip that part out of the patch, I'd be glad to take the > > > > rest of it, and then we can work on the ioctl issue together. > > > > > > Why don't you want the ioctls? Is there another way to communicate > > > with the driver for tuning options? > > > > sysfs for 2.5, and procfs for 2.4. > > > > Also, I would really like to see this patch in 2.5 first, before 2.4, as > > new things should not really go into 2.4 without being tested out for a > > while by everyone in 2.5. > > Ok, that (procfs) is an option if you really don't like the ioctls. > > My problem: I need this patch in 100+ machines running 2.4.20 or newer > in about 2-3 months. Any chance it will make it into 2.4.21+ if I use procfs?
Looks like you already have a working patch that you could put on those 100+ machines today :) (but if you do, watch out for the security problems in your ioctl implementation, it didn't look secure at first glance...) As for what's the odds of getting this into 2.4.21, I don't know. Let's see the code and work from there. Oh, and any reason you just can't use usbfs for this right now? Since you are changing the driver to not work like a tty driver anymore, doing everything from userspace might make more sense. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
