Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 12/31/2006 23:29:58
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> alright, so I'll go on with the diff I posted, perhaps with an
>> additional parameter (const char *)
> do you mean to use ioctl to implement sysdisk(9)?
no, the way I understood it is that the ioctl stuff is for driver code;
sysdisk(9) is unrelated. sysdisk(9) allows a subsystem that wants to
protect itself to do so, while the disk_ioctl() stuff is to (somewhat)
help driver authors.
>> and/or similar set of routines that
>> take a dev_t.
> can you explain?
yah, sysdisk(9) take struct vnode *, I thought about adding routines
that dev_t (and use vfinddev() to make it a struct vnode * internally).