Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-29 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 27 October 2016, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:54:05 AM CEST Tom Gundersen wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski > >> wrote: > >> > This may have been covered elsewhere, but cou

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> >> Could you elaborate on why you think syscalls would be more >> appropriate than ioctls? > > ioctl's tend to be a horrid mess both for things like compat.but also > for things like

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > > Could you elaborate on why you think syscalls would be more > appropriate than ioctls? ioctl's tend to be a horrid mess both for things like compat.but also for things like system call tracing and filtering (ie BPF). The compat mess is fi

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-27 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:54:05 AM CEST Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > This may have been covered elsewhere, but could this use syscalls instead? >> >> Yes, syscalls would work ess

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-27 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:54:05 AM CEST Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > This may have been covered elsewhere, but could this use syscalls instead? > > Yes, syscalls would work essentially the same. For now, we are using a > cdev as it makes

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-26 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > This may have been covered elsewhere, but could this use syscalls instead? Yes, syscalls would work essentially the same. For now, we are using a cdev as it makes it a lot more convenient to develop and test as an out-of-tree module, but t

Re: [RFC v1 02/14] bus1: provide stub cdev /dev/bus1

2016-10-26 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Oct 26, 2016 12:21 PM, "David Herrmann" wrote: > > From: Tom Gundersen > > Add the CONFIG_BUS1 option to enable the bus1 kernel messaging bus. If > enabled, provide the bus1.ko module with a stub cdev /dev/bus1. So far > it does not expose any API, but the full intended uapi is provided in > i