On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 05:40:50PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:10 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > But we (the kernel community), don't really accept that as a valid > > reason to accept this kind of code, sorry. > > Fair enough. I'd like some guidance in that case. Some of our ioctls > access the hardware more or less directly, while others do things like > read or reset counters. > > Which of these kinds of operations are appropriate to retain as ioctls, > in your eyes, and which are best converted to sysfs or configfs > alternatives?
Idealy, nothing should be new ioctls. But in the end, it all depends on exactly what you are trying to do with each different one. > As an example, take a look at ipath_sma_ioctl. It seems to me that > receiving or sending subnet management packets ought to remain as > ioctls, while getting port or node data could be turned into sysfs > attributes. Lane identification could live in configfs. If you think > otherwise, please let me know what's more appropriate. I really don't know what the subnet management stuff involves, sorry. But doesn't the open-ib layer handle that all for you already? 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
