[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100924150738.744297d0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:07:38 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] ptp: IEEE 1588 hardware clock support
> You can't do that avoiding as you might like because the behaviour of
> file handle numbering is defined by the standards. Hence the "f*"
> versions of the calls (and of lots of other stuff)
>
> Whether you add new syscalls or do the fd passing using flags and hide
> the ugly bits in glibc is another question.
To add an example of what I mean you might end up defining "CLOCK_FD" to
indicate to use the fd in the struct, but given syscalls are trivial
codewise and would end up as
fclock_foo(int fd, blah)
{
clock = fd_to_clock(fd);
if (error)
return error
clock_do_foo(clock, blah);
clock_put(clock);
}
and
clock_foo(int posixid, blah)
{
clock = posix_to_clock(posixid)
...
rest same
}
as wrappers it seems hardly worth adding ugly hacks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists