On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:05:40PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > Greg> You are letting any user, with any privilege register or > Greg> unregister an "agent"? > > They have to be able to open the device node. We could add a check > that they have it open for writing but there's not really much point > in opening this device read-only.
Ok, I remember this conversation a while ago. We discussed this same thing a number of months back on the openib mailing list. Nevermind :) > Greg> Also, these "agents" seem to be a type of filter, right? Is > Greg> there no other way to implement this than an ioctl? > > ioctl seems to be the least bad way to me. This really feels like a > legitimate use of ioctl to me -- we use read/write to handle passing > data through our file descriptor, and ioctl for control of the > properties of the descriptor. > > What would you suggest as an ioctl replacement? I really can't think of anything else. It just will require a _lot_ of vigilant attention to prevent people from adding other ioctls to this one, right? Do you have other ioctls planned for this same interface for stage 2 and future stages of ib implementation for Linux? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
