Krzysztof Halasa <khc@intrepid.pm.waw.pl> écrit :
[...]
> > Comments welcome. IMHO domain-specific ioctls are a better direction
> > than the current make-sockios.h-huge-with-new-ioctls approach.
>
> I think we should separate two things there:
> - the place (files) where SIOCxxx values are defined
> - the way we use ioctl call.
(1) and (2) may be related:
no sub-ioctl (2) + scattered files (1) = *ouch*
[...]
> you have to call it with:
> proto = malloc();
> ifreq.name = "qwe0";
> ifreq.data = proto;
> (int*)proto = SIOC_SET_FR_PROTO_PARAMETERS;
> (fr_protocol)(((int*)proto) + 1).fr_protocol.t391 = 20;
> (fr_protocol)(((int*)proto) + 1).fr_protocol.n393 = 5;
> ioctl(s, SIOC_FR_PROTO, &ifreq);
Variant:
struct sub_req sub;
sub.fr_protocol.t391 = 20;
sub.fr_protocol.n293 = 5;
sub.sub_ioctl = SIOC_SET_FR_PROTO_PARAMETERS;
ifreq.name = "qwe0";
ifreq.data = ⊂
ioctl(s, SIOC_FR_PROTO, &ifreq);
At least it avoids digging at a special position in a structure
to know the expected operation and the underlying structure.
struc sub_req {
int sub_ioctl;
union {
struct fr_protocol fr_prot;
...
struct xx_protocol xx_prot;
}
}
struct if_req {
int name;
struct sub_req sub;
}
It could avoid a flat name-space. Opinion anyone ?
-- Ueimor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:11 EST