[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090617001157.065ee652@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:11:57 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] AFS: Implement OpenAFS pioctls(version)s
> Whilst I might wish to ultimately replace the OpenAFS userspace utilities with
> my own set, that's no small piece of work, and so a handy halfway stage is a
> mixed environment as outlined above.
>
> Furthermore, the ability to use the OpenAFS userspace utilities unmodified
> with my kernel module, and, indeed vice-versa, makes testing much easier.
But if we add an ABI we end up stuck with it and this one is really
really rather ugly.
Can you not put pioctl() into a C library linked with the openafs
utilities that generates more sensible interface calls ? I mean you have
to produce the pioctl() syscall wrapper anyway so why not make "pioctl" a
user space compat library ?
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists