> > This is a long term plan, of course, but I'd like to see sysfs functions go
> > away
> > in a year or so. What do you think?
>
> hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
> school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
>
> Hopefully Alan
This is a long term plan, of course, but I'd like to see sysfs functions go
away
in a year or so. What do you think?
hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
Hopefully Alan can recall
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:34:15 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
> On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
> > hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
> > school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
> >
> > Hopefully Alan can recall the
On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
> hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
> school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
>
> Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
>
perhaps, something like
static struct class_attribute
On (02/28/15 10:33), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
> > school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
> >
> > Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
>
> oh. I thought this is how loop control works, and
On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
> hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
> school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
>
> Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
oh. I thought this is how loop control works, and ioctl there
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:10:35 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patchset introduces dynamic (on demand) zram device add-remove
> functionality via /dev/zram-control interface. Two ioctl commands are
> defined as of now (accessible in user-space via new zram.h header file):
> --
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:34:15 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
Hopefully
On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
oh. I thought this is how loop control works, and ioctl there doesn't
On (02/27/15 14:51), Andrew Morton wrote:
hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
perhaps, something like
static struct class_attribute
On (02/28/15 10:33), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
hoo boy. Creating a /dev node and doing ioctls on it is really old
school. So old school that I've forgotten why we don't do it any more.
Hopefully Alan can recall the thinking?
oh. I thought this is how loop control works, and ioctl
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:10:35 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
this patchset introduces dynamic (on demand) zram device add-remove
functionality via /dev/zram-control interface. Two ioctl commands are
defined as of now (accessible in user-space via new
Hello,
this patchset introduces dynamic (on demand) zram device add-remove
functionality via /dev/zram-control interface. Two ioctl commands are
defined as of now (accessible in user-space via new zram.h header file):
-- ZRAM_CTL_ADD
add new device (generates device_id automatically or
Hello,
this patchset introduces dynamic (on demand) zram device add-remove
functionality via /dev/zram-control interface. Two ioctl commands are
defined as of now (accessible in user-space via new zram.h header file):
-- ZRAM_CTL_ADD
add new device (generates device_id automatically or
14 matches
Mail list logo
