Re: ioctl(2) vs sys/ioctl.h

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1012181604050.27150%quicky.whooppee.com@localhost>,
> Paul Goyette  <paul%whooppee.com@localhost> wrote:
> > Is there some reason why there is a discrepancy in the definition of
> > ioctl()?
> >
> > From man page ioctl(2)
> >
> >         SYNOPSIS
> >              #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> >
> >              int
> >              ioctl(int d, unsigned long request, void *argp);
> >
> >
> > Yet, from sys/ioctl.h we have
> >
> >         __BEGIN_DECLS
> >         int     ioctl(int, unsigned long, ...);
> >         __END_DECLS
>
> Most of our ioctl's take pointer arguments. Some streams ioctls though
> take int arguments (ioctl(fd, I_FLUSH, FLUSHR) for example) and using
> void * as the argument would not compile cleanly. I think that we
> should not have void * in the man page either.

Should the man page be updated to match reality?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:       |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com    |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------