On 11 Nov 2014 08:14, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 11/09/2014 04:50 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > The list contains hex values of different constants. I just wonder for > > which architecture (alpha, i386, mips, or sparc at that time). No > > information is supplied. > > > > Current values depend on the architecture, e.g. > > > > On amd64 > > 0x82307201 VFAT_IOCTL_READDIR_BOTH > > 0x82307202 VFAT_IOCTL_READDIR_SHORT > > 0x80047210 FAT_IOCTL_GET_ATTRIBUTES > > 0x40047211 FAT_IOCTL_SET_ATTRIBUTES > > 0x80047213 FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME_ID > > > > On mips > > 0x42187201 VFAT_IOCTL_READDIR_BOTH > > 0x42187202 VFAT_IOCTL_READDIR_SHORT > > 0x40047210 FAT_IOCTL_GET_ATTRIBUTES > > 0x80047211 FAT_IOCTL_SET_ATTRIBUTES > > 0x40047213 FAT_IOCTL_GET_VOLUME_ID > > > > Hence hex values should be removed. > > It sounds like you are right that the hex values should be > removed. But, how did you determine those different > hex values above? Grepping the sources, it's not > obvious that amd64 and mips should be different. ioctl's can integrate the type size right ? so wouldn't be surprised if it changed across arches. fwiw, strace carries a script to try and do all this magic automatically: http://sourceforge.net/p/strace/code/ci/master/tree/linux/ioctlent.sh of course it misses out on ioctls that aren't exported in headers and are internal to specific drivers. i.e. it's not perfect at all, but that's because ioctls are a goddamn mess :). i agree though that the man page should drop hex values as they aren't useful. if you're using a "standard" ioctl, you should get it from the relevant header file. if you're using a "non-standard" ioctl, then you get the pieces. > > I further suggest to remove all documentation of structure details. > > Could you elaborate this point a little. Some examples, and > why you think they should be removed. I'm not disagreeing, just > looking to clarify what you mean. i think for the common/standard ioctls, it's useful to have manpages that delve down into the details. but for the fringe ones, it's a waste of time for the vast majority of people. maybe one way to determine whether it's worth documenting, see if strace has a decoder for it :). -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
