From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.baluta@gmail.com (Daniel Baluta) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:11:01 +0300 Subject: unlocked_ioctl explanation In-Reply-To: <222949.7257.qm@web39310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <222949.7257.qm@web39310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org 2011/5/19 Ezequiel Garc?a > > Thanks Dave for your answer. I guess the same question has been answered several times before. For the interest reader, I've found these: > > http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4711/what-is-the-difference-between-ioctl-unlocked-ioctl-and-compat-ioctl > > http://lwn.net/Articles/119652/ > > http://www.mail-archive.com/kernelnewbies at nl.linux.org/msg00269.html > > I have a remaining question, though. In the lwn article I read this: > > "The ioctl() system call has long been out of favor among the kernel developers, who see it as a completely uncontrolled entry point into the kernel". > > Is this pointing that ioctl() is planning to get removed from the kernel ? In that case what's the currently preferred mechanism for giving 'control commands' to device drivers ? I would bet for 'sysfs'. thanks, Daniel.