Subject: Re: IOCTL implementation and kernel/userland addresses
To: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 02/14/2005 11:56:40
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 07:50:31PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:45:57AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > Ahh, I was mistakenly thinking that ltsleep wants the proc pointer, and=
=20
> > thus NULL would have problems. As it doesn't, we should be fine.
>=20
> Still we could use the proc pointer to know if it's safe to sleep
> or not ...
ioctls should either sleep or not sleep. I do not think the behavior of a=
=20
given ioctl should change depending on the calling context. If we need a=20
sleeping and a non-sleeping variant, we should have two calls. :-)
Take care,
Bill
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQFCEQJ3Wz+3JHUci9cRArGNAKCN/kP7jo9p6ba2wfP+Q9GDks9NZwCfTXFr
9UEq0rA8CSqP+SU3UIYDlg8=
=DBUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5--