From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263745AbUEWXlY (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:41:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263750AbUEWXlY (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:41:24 -0400 Received: from electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com ([213.41.134.224]:55468 "EHLO fr.zoreil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263745AbUEWXlW (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:41:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:39:30 +0200 From: Francois Romieu To: Thomas Winischhofer Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: ioctl number 0xF3 Message-ID: <20040524013930.A21374@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <40AF42B3.8060107@winischhofer.net> <1085228451.14486.0.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <40AF4A13.4020005@winischhofer.net> <20040522125108.GB4589@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <40AF55AF.2020506@winischhofer.net> <20040522163214.A32228@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <40AF73D5.5010202@winischhofer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <40AF73D5.5010202@winischhofer.net>; from thomas@winischhofer.net on Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:37:57PM +0200 X-Organisation: Land of Sunshine Inc. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas Winischhofer : [...] > The interface I intend to use matches the one the X driver has (using > the Xv extension as an ioctl replacement) and will be documented. Since > I develope both the SiS kernel framebuffer driver as well as the SiS X > driver this will reduce duplicate code and ensures good cooperation. > Furthermore, there could be a common library for both the framebuffer and X. As you apparently manage the utility, you are at the first place to handle the incompatibilities as well. Fine :o) > Hm. Were the matrox folks asked for a "clear interface" in advance when > they started using the 'n' ioctls? Am I too polite? ;) Nonononono. It is just a bit optimistic to hope for an instant solution here if there has not been one so far on the xfree/friends side. Imo there are some grey areas: - what does the common part need; - who can/want/will do the dirty work. Looking at the code, there is no instant answer and things won't be set in stone today. The best you can do is to minimize the pain in the future: use as few ioctls as possible so that you can control/verify the changes of interface trough a single point and design this interface so that it takes into account that things will change. No silver bullet. [...] > sisfb uses a few ioctls already, as an extension to the generic fb > related ioctls. (Although the version currently in mainline 2.4 is not > in any way 32/64 bit safe, and neiter is the mainline 2.6 version yet as > regards the obviously required ioctl32 emulation stuff - investigating > this at the moment). Consider reusing these ? It may be a bit academic as you control the main utility anyway. -- Ueimor