I don't think ioctl(2) should be used for regular files.
>From man ioctl(2) on Linux.
SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
int ioctl(int d, int request, ...)
.
.
.
ERRORS
EBADF d is not a valid descriptor.
EFAULT argp references an inaccessible memory area.
ENOTTY d is not associated with a character special device.
Jim
>
>Jim Mostek writes:
> >
> > I don't see a callout from sys_fcntl into a file system specific routine
> > (other than for file locking). There is a lock callout in
> > the file operations that can be invoked in fcntl_getlk/fcntl_setlk/...
> > (I'm looking in 2.3.42). But, this is different than file system specific
> > fcntls. There is a call to sock_fcntl if the inode is a socket. But, I
> > don't see a call for a file system specific fcntl in sys_fcntl..
> >
> > XFS has several fcntls for things like preallocating space. This is used
> > by some applications who want very large files. This let's a file system
> > allocate the space all at once.
> >
> > Has the issue of a file_operation callout for fcntl gone around before?
> > Anyone opposed to adding this? I don't think this belongs in the
> > inode_operations.
>
> As I understand it, Linux does do this sort of thing via ioctl(),
>not fcntl(). The logic is that fcntl() is for attributes of "file" objects.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST