Subject: Re: Functional VOP_IOCTL
To: Konrad Schroder <>
From: Jason R Thorpe <>
List: tech-kern
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 <>