On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > I want to circulate this and get some comments and feedback, and if > > no one raises any serious objections - I'd love to get collaborators > > to work on this with me. Flame away! > > Hi Kent > > I doubt you will get much interest from netdev. netdev already > considers ioctl as legacy, and mostly uses netlink and a message > passing structure, which is easy to extend in a backwards compatible > manor. The more I look at netlink the more I wonder what on earth it's targeted at or was trying to solve. It must exist for a reason, but I've written a few ioctls myself and I can't fathom a situation where I'd actually want any of the stuff netlink provides. Why bother with getting a special socket type? Why asynchronous messages with all the marshalling/unmarshalling that entails? >From what I've seen all we really want is driver private syscalls, and the things about ioctls that suck are where it's _not_ like syscalls. Let's just make it work more like normal function calls.
