Re: Nonotify 0.3.2 (A simple dnotify replacement)

[nf <nf2@scheinwelt.at>]

On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 14:29, Pascal Schmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:40:06 +0200, you wrote in linux.kernel:
> 
> > 2) The /dev/nonotify device:
> >
> > /dev/nonotify has the only purpose to offer a special stat() call via
> > ioctl to read the contents_mtime field of directories (together with
> > atime, mtime, ctime). The client has to set the 'filename' field of the
> > 'nonotify_stat' structure and receives the four timespec fields updated
> > via ioctl.
> 
> A lot of people here (Linus, for instance) frown on ioctl() interfaces.
> They're hard to do right in 32/64bit compat layers, for example. How
> about using a syscall interface instead?

Nonotify uses ioctl mainly for 'pragmatical' reasons. A syscall would be
technically better - that's for sure, actually it was my initial idea to
use one (or to change the stat-call).

But i didn't want to bother people with asking to assign me a
syscall-number before even knowing if they like my idea. And changing it
to use a syscall lateron would be no problem at all from the concept of
nonotify.

Also - as a kernel newbie - i didn't find any good documentation how to
add my own syscall into the kernel. I just wanted to get nonotify
working as an 'optional patch', without changing tons of files.

But you could help me if you have a look at my ioctl function. I'm using
a structure which contains a char* pointer and four timespec fields. Do
you know if this causes problems with 32/64bit compatibility.

Thanks,

Norbert