> I/ General API comments > > 1/ System calls > > * ioctl() > > You have defined 5 ioctls() so far to operate on an existing > event. I was under the impression that ioctl() should not be > used except for drivers. > > How do you justify your usage of ioctl() in this context?
We can certainly do a separate sys_perf_counter_ctrl() syscall - and we will do that if people think the extra syscall slot is worth it in this case. The (mild) counter-argument so far was that the current ioctls are very simple over "IO" attributes of counters: - enable - disable - reset - refresh - set-period So they could be considered 'IO controls' in the classic sense and act as a (mild) exception to the 'dont use ioctls' rule. They are not some weird tacked-on syscall functionality - they modify the IO properties of counters: on/off, value and rate. If they go beyond that we'll put it all into a separate syscall and deprecate the ioctl (which will have a relatively short half-time due to the tools being hosted in the kernel repo). This could happen right now in fact, if people think it's worth it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org _______________________________________________ perfmon2-devel mailing list perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
