> IMHO any similar powerful (and versatile) interface will see the same
> problems. Enforcing a read/write like interface (and rejecting drivers
> that pass ptrs through this interface) may give you some knowledge about
> the kernel/userspace communication. But the data the flows around will
> become the same mess that is present with the current ioctl. Every driver
> invents its own sets of commands, its own rules of argument parsing, ...
> Maybe it's no longer strange binary data but readable ASCII strings but
> that's all. Look at how many different "styles" of /proc files there are.
Too many people who don't know C and manage to get their crap into the
tree. Shame, but that is _not_ a technical problem.
> IMHO what's needed is a definition for "sane" in this context. Trying
> to limit the kind of actions performed by ioctls is not "sane". Then
> people will always revert back to old ioctl. "Sane" could be: network
> transparent, architecture independant, usable with generic tools and non
> C-like languages.
/me points to UNIX-like OS that had done that. BTW, network-transparent means
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/