On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 09:39 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:20:46 -0700
> "Tim Anderson" <tanderson@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
> > Artem,
> > 
> > I see your point. Ioctls are going away after all.
> 
> I don't know where that stupid story keeps coming from. Ioctl is alive
> and well and there are more not less of them. There are lots of things
> you *cannot* do with sysfs, including synchronization and handling
> many kinds of changes to objects that can appear and disappear. Ditto
> there are problems with getting a consistent snapshot via sysfs because
> you can't atomically read multiple fields.
> 
> So please stop this 'ioctls are going away' stuff, its bunkum.

True, and we'll definitely need a new MEMERASE64 ioctl. But for the
_informational_ parts, those can happily be done through sysfs.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation



--
unsubscribe notice
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/