Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] inotify 0.10.0
From: Robert Love <rml@novell.com>
To: Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>
Cc: John McCutchan <ttb@tentacle.dhs.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gamin-list@gnome.org,
       viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, iggy@gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <1096407553.5177.41.camel@issola.madrabbit.org>
References: <1096250524.18505.2.camel@vertex>
	 <20040926211758.5566d48a.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <1096318369.30503.136.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com>
	 <1096350328.26742.52.camel@orca.madrabbit.org>
	 <20040928120830.7c5c10be.akpm@osdl.org>  <1096404035.30123.22.camel@vertex>
	 <1096404433.4911.57.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com>
	 <1096407553.5177.41.camel@issola.madrabbit.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:10:06 -0400
Message-Id: <1096409406.4911.101.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 679
Lines: 19

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 14:39 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:

> It's just as easy to pass crap via ioctl() as write().

The ioctl() at least forces you to break up your calls into request and
argument pairs.  And as the requests are inotify-based preprocessor
defines, at least that half of the equation is impossible to mess up.

In other words, ioctl() is slightly more structured than write(), which
is utterly non-structured.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/