Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755345AbXF3Iih (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:38:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753153AbXF3Iia (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:38:30 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58934 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752641AbXF3Ii3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:38:29 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:38:27 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Rodolfo Giometti Cc: David Woodhouse , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS (with new syscalls API) - new version Message-ID: <20070630083827.GA21102@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Rodolfo Giometti , David Woodhouse , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <1182960660.1170.12.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070627174537.GM13886@enneenne.com> <1182966588.1170.28.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070627224623.GO13886@enneenne.com> <1183018133.1170.46.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070628081538.GP13886@enneenne.com> <1183019474.1170.66.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070628084003.GQ13886@enneenne.com> <1183031060.1170.145.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070628161450.GD13886@enneenne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070628161450.GD13886@enneenne.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 24 On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 06:14:50PM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > Hello, > > here my new LinuxPPS patch. > > What to do now for kernel inclusion? Should I provide several patches? > If so how should I divide them? > > Thanks a lot, Sorry for coming in that late, but using syscalls for something as periphal sounds like a very bad idea to me, and the syscalls aren't defined nicely either (e.g. you have an ioctl lookalike). I'd say back to the drawingboard. And yes, even ioctls are nicer than badly designed syscalls :) Also code seems to be odd at least in a few places, e.g. all the access_oks and double checks of the ioctl-lookalike commands should go. - 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/