From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:33:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:33:10 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:10695 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:33:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:33:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Martin Dalecki cc: Vojtech Pavlik , Alan Cox , Padraig Brady , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports In-Reply-To: <3CEB9943.5030400@evision-ventures.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 May 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > For kbdrate??? sysctl I might see - after all, we are talking about > > setting two numbers. ioctl() to pass a couple of integers to the kernel? > > No, thanks. If you are complaining about use of /dev/port - I completely agree that it's crap... > Portable along architectures - no thanks? > Portbale along different devices and device driver implementations - no thanks? > Not to mess with hardware with preassumtptions how it works - no thanks? > Giving PC vendors a chance to get rid of silly legacy hardware - no thanks? > Abviously documented by beeing there - no thanks? ... but WTF does it have to ioctl vs. saner mechanisms?