On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:53:08PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 21:39 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > Ok, that's fair enough. But if you want to do something like ptys, then > > why not just have your own filesystem for this driver? > > If you think it's appropriate to implement a new filesystem to replace a > single ioctl that returns two integers, we can probably do that, but > more realistically, the GETPORT ioctl can probably live a long and > untroubled life as another netlink message.
Well it only takes about 250 lines to make a new fs these days, but a single netlink message would probably be smaller :) > > You are just making your own type of special interface up as you > > go, so the complexity is also there (this complexity would normally be > > in some core code, which I am hoping that your code will turn into for > > other devices of the same type, right?) > > The most important chunk of likely common code I can see at the moment > is the stuff for bodging user page mappings that we got hammered over > already. The drivers/infiniband/ tree already has code that does > something like this, and a few other not-yet-in-tree network drivers > that support RDMA have similar needs, too. The RDMA-loving people need to get together and hammer out a proposal that the network people can laugh at and shoot down all at once :) Ok, maybe not shoot down, but they do need to get together and come up with some kind of solution, add-hok implementations in a bunch of different drivers, in a bunch of different ways is not the proper thing to do, no matter _how_ different the hardware works at the lower levels. 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
