Date: 12 Nov 2001 18:38:59 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linuxulator MFC and VMware Message-ID: <xzpeln3yjm4.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <200111120122.fAC1MCe07028@muse.sanewo.dyn.to> References: <20011107234409.XACFC0A8274C.C78F0C8A@mail.biglobe.ne.jp> <xzp3d3q8vsj.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <xzpy9li7etq.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200111110554.fAB5slK11221@muse.sanewo.dyn.to> <xzpd72pnxl2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200111120122.fAC1MCe07028@muse.sanewo.dyn.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp> writes: > Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but when linux application does an > ioctl(SIOCGIFFLAGS) over non-socket fd, linux_ioctl_socket is invoked > directly from linux_ioctl(), isn't it? Yes. > Should linux_ioctl_socket() return ENOIOCTL for non-socket fd and the > range of ioctls for linux_ioctl_private() be expanded to cover > SIOCGIFFLAGS, maybe? No, linux_ioctl_socket() should return ENOTTY if the fd is not a socket, unless the requested command is SIOCGIFFLAGS or SIOCSIFFLAGS, in which case it should pass on the request to ioctl(), the way linux_ioctl_private() does. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpeln3yjm4.fsf>