On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:29:58 +0200 Rodolfo Giometti <giome...@enneenne.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:52:47AM +0200, Paul Chavent wrote: > > > > I would also prefer the separate ioctl. As you said it, it's a bit > > annoying to switch from blocking mode to non blocking mode if we > > need both mode. But i was not sure about the preferences of the > > maintainer : (i) change the api, or (ii) change the behavior with a > > widely supported interface (O_NONBLOCK). > > As already stated the PPS RFC doesn't use ioctls to manage PPS data so > we can modify ioctls according our needs! > > In fact we can modify the LinuxPPS wrapper functions to still remain > RFC compliant. :) Sure. I do think the new ioctl is better than O_NONBLOCK. Are you OK with that? > > I'm certainly not the best person to make the final decision, but i > > would like to help you if you need me (write doc, or change this > > patch). > > In this scenario I think we can do as Andrew suggests modifying > LinuxPPS docs accordingly... maybe we can add a new file into > linux/Documentation/pps directory describing Linux PPS ioctls and how > they interact with PPS RFC functions. > > Andrew, could this be an acceptable solution? Sounds great, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
