On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 08:26:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> You're missing the point.
I don't think Richard is actually. I think Richard has hit a nail
dead on its head.
> It's ok to do "read()/write()" on structures.
Ok, we can read()/write() structures. So someone invents the following
structure:
struct foo {
int cmd;
void *data;
} foo;
Now they use write(fd, &foo, sizeof(foo)); Haven't they just swapped
the ioctl() interface for write() instead?
Ok, lets hope that humanity isn't that stupid, so lets take another
example:
struct bar {
int in_size;
void *in_data;
int out_size;
void *out_data;
};
struct foo {
int cmd;
struct bar1;
} foo;
Same write call, but ok, we have a structure of known size. Its still
the same problem.
What I'm trying to say is that I think that read+write is open to more
or the same abuse that ioctl has been, not less.
However, it does have one good thing going for it - you can support
poll on blocking "ioctls" like TIOCMIWAIT.
> None of which are "network-nice". Basically, ioctl() is historically used
> as a "pass any crap into driver xxxx, and the driver - and ONLY the driver
> - will know what to do with it".
I still see read()/write() being a "pass any crap" interface. The
implementer of the target for read()/write() will probably still be
a driver which will need to decode what its given, whether its in
ASCII or binary.
And driver writers are already used to writing ioctl-like interfaces.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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 - 21:00:36 EST