Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 23:21:01 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: ioctl() question... Message-ID: <199511082221.XAA10849@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199511080922.JAA06752@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Nov 8, 95 09:22:39 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Michael Smith wrote: > > > 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. You might find examples for both. The split version might be slightly faster, but unless you're going to call it 10000 times a second, i doubt one would notice it. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511082221.XAA10849>