Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 22:59 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:08:48 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 17:54 schrieb Mike Panetta:
> > > Just out of curiosity, why do we want to get rid of ioctl calls?
>
> > For a number of reasons.
> > - we got burned on 32/64 issues
>
> That's actually a reason to support ioctls. You get burned much worse
> on 32/64 when doing read(2), because no translation or adaptation is
> possible.
Are pointers passed through read/write? That would be very ugly.
I thought a design with one file per endpoint allowed us to avoid that.
> > - no easy support for non blocking IO
> > - no easy support for AIO
>
> That's the main thing (unless we play with mmap+ioctl for AIO imple-
> mentation like V4L did).
No thanks.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
