Hi, On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:51:15PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> The idea came to me to have a generic RPC with two-way parameter > transmission and a function code. Similar to the job of Unix ioctl(). > It would reduce future work when other new kernel calls shall be > implemented. No no, that wouldn't be good. ioctl() is basically a generic kernel RPC mechanism -- but we already have one! :-) No need to implement RPCs on top of RPCs... Defining special-purpose RPCs as we need them is The Right Way (TM). Also we will be able to reuse this RPC directly when we implement the userspace drivers; only substituting the device parameter with a file one :-) > Actually libburn is a userspace driver with a library API. This has > advantages, like a development cycle without reboot, and it has > disadvantages, like udev beginning to show allergic reactions when my > programs burn on DVD+RW. (As driver of the drive, i really could need > reliable locking.) Well, a mechanism to temporarily claim exclusive control of the device may indeed be desirable -- but that's really orthogonal to the question whether the driver runs in kernel space or not :-) -antrik-
