On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 21:19, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> I know that there is ioctl support in the existing drivers - but I have
> not yet seen a driver which needed it. "needed" in the sense that
> equivalent functionality could not have been created using dev files
> alone.
>
> Also, the amount of userspace which will break because of missing ioctl
> functionality will be absolutely *minimal*. There's not a lot of
> watchdog software out there, and porting whatever software uses ioctls
> to use sane interfaces instead, should be doable. I don't think anyone
> would get terribly upset if this change was made as a 2.4->2.6
> transition thing.
There is a lot of watchdog using stuff, some quite proprietary and
embedded into big apps. Even then you have to solve the persistence
issue.
Losing the old api is a 2.8/3.0 thing perhaps, even then its a big
break by Linux standards
-
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 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:31 EST