Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports

[Martin Dalecki]

Uz.ytkownik Russell King napisa?:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:13:05PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> 
>>And now I'm just eagerly awaiting the first clueless
>>l^Huser lurking on this list, who will flame me as usuall...
>>But that's no problem - I got already used to it :-).
> 
> 
> I'm waiting on Phil Blundell to notice - I think /dev/port may get used
> on ARM to emulate inb() and outb() from userspace; I don't look after
> glibc so shrug.
> 
> I agree however that /dev/port is a rotten interface that needs to go.
> 

Hmm still not flames? Do they all sleep right now?

- Should I perhaps tell what I think about the glibc bloat^W coding style?

- Should I perhaps tell how "usefull" the GNU extensions to the POSIX
   standards in question are?

- Or a side note about RH's slang and popt and other useless "required"
   shared libraries?

- Is there maybe some Python module using /dev/port for precisely
   the purpose you mention. (This is actually a good candidate.)

Anyway, dear Russell (plese note the double ll!):

[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]# find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep \/dev\/port 
/dev/null {} \;
[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]#

[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]# find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep \"port\" 
/dev/null {} \;
./hesiod/nss_hesiod/hesiod-service.c:  return lookup (portstr, "port", protocol, 
serv, buffer, buflen, errnop);
[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]#
[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]# find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep outb\( /dev/null 
{} \;
[root@kozaczek glibc-2.2.5]#

So I rather think that glibc may be bloated but it's not idiotic and
we have nothing to fear from it ;-)... well this time at least...
As far as I know (and I know little about ARM). It would be anwyay
unnatural to use /dev/port for the purpose you mention.
ARM io space is memmory mapped, so if any file you would
rather use /dev/kmem...

Still no flames? This silence makes me suspicious....