Re: [PATCH] char/mem: Make /dev/port less obviously broken (v0)
From: Adam Jackson
Date: Mon Feb 06 2012 - 22:57:25 EST
On 2/6/12 7:15 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Who would use this new ioctl? And if it's been working ok until now,
why is it needed?
I'll go out on a limb and say nobody's been seriously using /dev/port.
libpciaccess would like to, since it avoids needing iopl, and also
avoids duplicating all the kernel's per-arch logic for port access in
userspace. But if it's not going to give me the cycle size I asked for
I need to fix it before I can use it. Otherwise you get what I'm
getting, which is a vesa driver that doesn't work.
Adding the ioctl was just me being polite and assuming that user-kernel
ABI was a thing we actually believe in. If it's not, great, let's just
fix /dev/port to not be idiotic. If it is, I'd prefer not wasting the
memory on another inode.
If you want something "new" like this, why not just create /dev/ioport
or something like that to always use the proper alignment and not need
an ioctl at all?
If you really want that shed painted a different color, fine.
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/