On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> I think a new ioctl would be sensible. There is a lot to go in it.
Alan, what's the approach you'd feel more comfortable with:
- One ioctl that passes a pointer to a known structure in ifr.ifr_data as
its argument.
- Several ioctl's, one for each parameter, that pass only the specific
parameter new value as the argument.
The former is good because it relies on a _single_ ioctl. However, every
time you change the ioctl structure you may lose backward compatibility.
The latter is good because new implementations / features won't affect
previous working features. However, it'd create a huge list of ioctl's.
Please let me know whatcha think.
Later,
Ivan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST