Well, if this simple patch to the current pioctl can be made without all that overhead, then someone else can fix this, unfortunately. I thought this would be relatively simple, and it's a fix I don't really need personally. Sorry to be selfish...
The real question is: do I need a new pioctl for this? I'm just modifying the existing code and changing it's behavior. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jeffrey Altman < [email protected]> wrote: > On 10/19/2010 2:02 PM, Phillip Moore wrote: > > > > That means I will need a new kernel module installed in order to test > > this, doesn't it? > > > > Is there anything I need to worry about if I change > > DECL_PIOCTL(PPrecache) to behave more > > like DECL_PIOCTL(PSetCachingThreshold)? > > > > The change seems pretty obvious, but this is the first time (OK, in > > about 13 years) that I've touched any of the code in the kernel module. > > Be very careful about modifying pioctls. They are effectively RPCs and > you can't be sure that the clients (userland fs) and servers (kernel > modules) will be updates at the same time. You are in most cases going > to need to request the allocation of new pioctl numbers from the > registrar and implement the revised pioctl independently from the > existing implementation which might or might not be removed. > > Jeffrey Altman > >
