Modifying the vboxguest ioctl API (Was: Re: [vbox-dev] [RFC] VGDrvCommonIoCtl: Add f32bit flag argument)

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 14-08-17 14:19, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14-08-17 13:43, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> >
> > the other platforms also have KPIs or similar constructs for figuring
> > out whether the client process issuing the I/O controls is a 32-bit or
> > 64-bit one.  However, using the VBOXGUEST_IOCTL_FLAG set to 0 or 0x80 if
> > 32-bit or 64-bit was a less complex (+faster(+safer)) way of deal with
> > this.  The host driver does this as well.  I would like the structure of
> > the two to be as similar as possible.
> >
> > I'm not very keen to adding linux specific clutter (f32Bit + #ifndef
> > RT_OS_LINUX) to the common code just because you can do it differently
> > only Linux.  Sorry.  Want minimal platform specific cruft in common
> > code.  Hope you understand.
>
> OK and yes I understand.
>
> > PS. I noticed in the Linux kernel RFC email thread that we've agreed to
> > freeze the I/O control ABI.  We cannot guarantee that's it's 100% frozen
> > at this point, since the generic status code fix (getting rid of that
> > ioctl non-zero return value) hasn't been done yet.  I will see if I can
> > squeeze it in later this week.
>
> I had already decided to just live with the positive return for vbox
> host status codes, but if you want this changed for other reasons, then yes
> now would be the time to do that. But you don't have to do it just on
> my account.

I plan to post a v2 of the vboxguest driver for upstream tomorrow. Given
the above I will mark it as a RFC for now. Anychance you can wrap this up
soonish so that I can post a non RFC version with the final ABI upstream ?

Regards,

Hans