Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:
> ioctl() is avoidable. Proof: Plan 9. They don't _have_ that system call.
> It doesn't mean that we should (or could) remove it. It _does_ mean that
> new APIs do not need it.
*I* sure wish we could. From the standpoint of trying to trace system calls,
it's a big stinking black hole. All of the other syscalls (I think) have
pretty well defined semantics in terms of what they do to a process' memory
space, but the semantics of ioctl are "may read or write any memory
whatsoever, and if you want to know what, well, it sucks to be you".
Even NT does this better, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/winbase/devio_9quk.htm
--Mike
-- [O]ne of the features of the Internet [...] is that small groups of people can greatly disturb large organizations. --Charles C. Mann - 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 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:30 EST