Re: [RFC 5/5] mtd: add MEMWRITEDATAOOB ioctl

Artem Bityutskiy
2011-08-23T06:03:27Z

On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:04 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> BTW, I'm considering splitting the usr_ptr into separate buffers for
> data and oob. This will probably be a little easier for the user
> interface as well as for internal kernel operations. Anyway, the
> resulting struct is looking more and more like the existing `struct
> mtd_oob_ops' (this is kind of by design); is it still a good idea to
> keep the user-facing struct independent of the internal mtd_oob_ops
> struct? I'm thinking it would leave some flexibility for the future.

Yes, it is good idea, and you anyway cannot use the same struct for
both, because structs for ioctl have more limitation WRT struct size
(best to make it to be multiple of 64-bits), fileds (no pointers should
be used, better types like _u32 should be used), reserve for future (a
pool of bytes which user must set to 0 and which we can use in future).

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy