>From viro@math.psu.edu Wed Jul 17 16:00:59 2002
>> Is there any problem with using a ioctl() from upper layer kernel to the low
>> level drivers (living under the SW raid) to reduce the number of retries to a
>> reasonable value in this case?
>>
>> The main design goal for UNIX as to keep it simple. There is no need for a
>> complex cross layer error control.
>... and ioctl(2) is a gross violation of that design goal. Ask the authors
>of UNIX how they feel about that kludge, let alone propagation of said kludge
>beyond the TTY layer where it had originated (or about the entire v7 TTY layer,
>for that matter - v8 and later had thrown that crap away).
ioctl()s do introduce a common abstract interface layer.
Tell me how else you would like to set similar things in e.g. different disk
type drivers.
In Plan 9, they did replace them with a text interface to /dev/{driver}.ctl
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
-
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 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:23 EST