Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:09:39 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Martin Laabs <martin.laabs@mailbox.tu-dresden.de> Cc: "freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org" <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: linux-libusb done Message-ID: <20081027130939.22366y2j8jw0etss@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <op.ujoe7rcd724k7f@localhost> References: <op.ujmobziu724k7f@localhost> <20081026105252.GA45809@freebsd.org> <op.ujoe7rcd724k7f@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Martin Laabs <martin.laabs@mailbox.tu-dresden.de> (from Mon, =20 27 Oct 2008 10:27:17 +0100): > Hi, > > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:52:52 +0100, Roman Divacky =20 > <rdivacky@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> please show us the linuxulator patch and I'll see what I can do about it.= .. > > I've append the patch for the linux.ko module as well as the patch for the > bsd.c in libusb-0.12. I don't comment on the content, Roman already did. I concentrate on =20 the "pureness" of the linuxulator. What you do here is mixing FreeBSD ioctls with linux ones. While I =20 welcome this for sure, I suggest to not enable it by default. I =20 suggest to have a sysctl compat.linux.bsd_ioctl_passthrough or =20 something like this, which enables this upon request. Currently it =20 seems the ioctls are distinct, but in case there will be some ioctls =20 which are the same number but have a different semantic/syntax, the =20 sysctl-approach make this a little bit more easy to handle (it means =20 that the feature is optional and needs to be enable by intend, and if =20 there's a clash in the future, we have some safety net). Bye, Alexander. --=20 By trying we can easily learn to endure adversity. Another man's, I mean. =09=09-- Mark Twain http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081027130939.22366y2j8jw0etss>