From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 8 01:30:29 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA29101 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:30:29 -0800 Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA29096 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:30:22 -0800 Received: from msmith@localhost by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id JAA06752; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:22:40 GMT From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199511080922.JAA06752@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: ioctl() question... To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:22:39 +0000 () Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199511080909.KAA17710@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 8, 95 10:09:28 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 796 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk J Wunsch stands accused of saying: > > > > > A device-driver level question : > > Yup, but what's the question? Ah, sorry. The question was : is it faster/better/more traditional/sexier to - a) use the two-ioctl sequence _IOW(lots), IOR(int) or b) use a single ioctl _IOWR(lots) where bulk data is passed in, but only an int is coming back. > cheers, J"org I am reminded of the minix ioctl manpage 8) -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 041-122-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] My car has "demand start" -Terry Lambert UNIX: live FreeBSD or die! [[