Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] uio: add ioctl support

[Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>]

On 10/07/15 11:17, Vlad Zolotarov wrote:
>
>
> On 10/07/15 00:33, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Tue,  6 Oct 2015 20:17:36 +0300
>> Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Add the ability for underlying device drivers to register the ioctl
>>> commands. This is useful when some interaction with the user space
>>> beyond sysfs capabilities is required, e.g. query the interrupt mode
>>> or bind eventfd to interrupt notifications (similarly to vfio ioctl
>>> VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
>> After discussions on and off list, the idea of an ioctl interface
>> is just not going to be accepted upstream because it can be abused.
>> Therefore another API will be necessary.
>
> I'm open for ideas. So far ioctl seems like the most appropriate 
> candidate for the job... ;)
>
>>
>> Ps: since I did most of this first,
>
> this particular patch and parts of SET_IRQ code - yes. But that would 
> be all. Let's just be specific... ;)

Pardon - mapping bars was also snitched from your patches... ;)

> This still doesn't mean that u don't deserve a proper credit for that. 
> ;) But there was a reason why I didn't do that. See below.
>> I am surprised you never gave
>> any attribution for the earlier work.
>
> If memory serves me well I asked u about the "attribution" a few days 
> ago of the dpdk-dev list but got no answer.
> Therefore I took no steps in this regard since it left me under the 
> impression that u just didn't want it. However it seems now
> that that's not the case... ;)
>
> Pls., let me know if u want me to mention that this patch and SET_IRQ 
> ioctl code is based on your patches on dpdk-dev list and if yes, in which
> form: just mentioning it in the patch description or putting your 
> signed-off to the patch(es).
>
> thanks,
> vlad
>