From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] minor socket ioctl cleanup for 2.5.30 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:07:20 +0100 Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20020808170720.N24631@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20020808.083320.100990288.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jmorris@intercode.com.au, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@oss.sgi.com, willy@debian.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020808.083320.100990288.davem@redhat.com>; from davem@redhat.com on Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:33:20AM -0700 List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:33:20AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: James Morris > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:24:19 +1000 (EST) > > Suggested by Matthew Wilcox, the patch below consolidates FIOSETOWN etc. > ioctl handling into the socket layer, making it common for all sockets. > > Do we really want to do this? What if some socket family either > doesn't want to support it or wants to handle it differently? I rather think we do. It's analagous to saying "What if some filesystem either doesn't want to support it or wants to handle it differently?" -- tough! This is unix and filesystems (socket families) support this. have you read forsyth's paper "Sending UNIX to the Fat Farm"? http://www.caldo.demon.co.uk/doc/taste.pdf Section 3.3 is relevant here ... though I think you'll find great amusement in his other criticisms of solaris. -- Revolutions do not require corporate support.