Alan Cox writes:
> > ioctls are evil, period. At least with these names you can use normal
> > scripting and don't need any special tools. Every ioctl means a binary
> > that has no business to exist.
>
> That is not IMHO a rational argument. It isn't my fault that your
> shell does not support ioctls usefully. If you used perl as your
> login shell you would have no problem there.
There is another reason to use ioctl(2): when you need to send data to
the kernel/driver and wait for a response. It supports transactions,
which read(2) and write(2) cannot. Therefore it remains useful.
Al, if you really want to kill ioctl(2), then perhaps you should
implement a transaction(2) syscall. Something like:
int transaction (int fd, void *rbuf, size_t rlen,
void *wbuf, size_t wlen);
Of course, there wouldn't be any practical gain, since we already have
ioctl(2). Any gain would be aesthetic.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:35 EST