Subject: Re: Functional VOP_IOCTL
To: Konrad Schroder <email@example.com>
From: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/21/2003 09:00:12
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 03:52:42PM -0800, Konrad Schroder wrote:
> One of the things I'd like to do with LFS is to make the system calls into
> ioctl calls, which in theory should let LFS be loaded as an LKM. No other
> filesystem (except fifofs and specfs) has VOP_IOCTL defined as anything
> other than a stub, though, and I find that even if it is defined the ioctl
> still returns with EPASSTHROUGH.
> Would anyone object if I let ioctls to VREG and VDIR fall through to the
> VOP_IOCTL case?
On the surface, that seems okay to me. We (Wasabi) have a similar change
in our source tree to support some FFS ioctls we've added. I'd like to
hear what Frank has to say, though :-)
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>