Re: I.1 - System calls - ioctl

[Ingo Molnar]

> I/ General API comments
>
> 1/ System calls
>
>   * ioctl()
>
>    You have defined 5 ioctls() so far to operate on an existing
>    event. I was under the impression that ioctl() should not be
>    used except for drivers.
>
> How do you justify your usage of ioctl() in this context?

We can certainly do a separate sys_perf_counter_ctrl() syscall - and
we will do that if people think the extra syscall slot is worth it
in this case.

The (mild) counter-argument so far was that the current ioctls are
very simple over "IO" attributes of counters:

 - enable
 - disable
 - reset
 - refresh
 - set-period

So they could be considered 'IO controls' in the classic sense and
act as a (mild) exception to the 'dont use ioctls' rule.

They are not some weird tacked-on syscall functionality - they
modify the IO properties of counters: on/off, value and rate. If
they go beyond that we'll put it all into a separate syscall and
deprecate the ioctl (which will have a relatively short half-time
due to the tools being hosted in the kernel repo).

This could happen right now in fact, if people think it's worth it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/