On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > names) for next to any object in the kernel. ioctl() is, excuse me, a
> > barf-bag for all irregular stuff. So yes, both classes have irregular
>
> ioctl is indeed the barfbag - but its a stroke of genius by people who realised
> that some things could never cleanly be expressed in the basic API concepts
> and that a small clean API with a "weird()" entry point for the other stuff
> is long term better than a large bloated API with no ioctl that forces
> you to understand a large interface to program to a small one. Try NT
> programming
To hell with NT. There is a bunch of guys in NJ who did quite fine without
ioctl(2). And they got smaller interface - no magic numbers, no bloat, no
extra functions. I don't give a damn for NT - I've seen Cutler's code (in
RSX) and I have quite an opinion about his design abilities and taste, but
said opinion is completely unsuitable for family reading. But I have some
respect to _that_ bunch - you know, Thompson, Ritchie, Pike...
|--------------
|From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr@bell-labs.com>
[snip]
|Neil Franklin wrote:
|>
|> No ioctl()s?
|>
|> Something like: echo "38400,8,n,1" > /ioctrl/ttyS0 ?
[snip]
|Exactly like that, though it would be /dev/eia80ctl .
|No ioctl().
|-------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST