Re: [PATCH] pps : add non blocking option to PPS_FETCH ioctl.

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:29:58 +0200 Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:52:47AM +0200, Paul Chavent wrote:
> > 
> > I would also prefer the separate ioctl. As you said it, it's a bit
> > annoying to switch from blocking mode to non blocking mode if we
> > need both mode. But i was not sure about the preferences of the
> > maintainer : (i) change the api, or (ii) change the behavior with a
> > widely supported interface (O_NONBLOCK).
> 
> As already stated the PPS RFC doesn't use ioctls to manage PPS data so
> we can modify ioctls according our needs!
> 
> In fact we can modify the LinuxPPS wrapper functions to still remain
> RFC compliant. :)

Sure.  I do think the new ioctl is better than O_NONBLOCK.  Are you OK with
that?

> > I'm certainly not the best person to make the final decision, but i
> > would like to help you if you need me (write doc, or change this
> > patch).
> 
> In this scenario I think we can do as Andrew suggests modifying
> LinuxPPS docs accordingly... maybe we can add a new file into
> linux/Documentation/pps directory describing Linux PPS ioctls and how
> they interact with PPS RFC functions.
> 
> Andrew, could this be an acceptable solution?

Sounds great, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/