Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1573103
| From | Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver |
| Date | 2017-02-03 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t6Mz8-2gr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <t5K6m-3lE-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5NGW-5im-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5PSr-6L5-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <t623f-5RJ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6sAq-6o5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2 February 2017 at 16:37, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> wrote: > > > On 01/02/17 05:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> You can keep it roughly as-is if you're ~reasonably certain one won't >> change it in the future. > > I've made the change anyway. I think it's better now. > >> Some teams frown upon adding new IOCTL(s) where existing ones can be >> made backward/forward compatible. >> I'm not fully aware of the general direction/consensus on the topic, >> so it might be a minority. > > Sure, I just don't know what might be needed in the future so it's hard > to add a version or flags ioctl now. > Yes knowing how things will need to change in the is hard. That's why the documentation suggestions adding a flag to the ioctl structs. It [the flag] might imply certain functional/implementation change, support for new/deprecation of old features and others. >> On the other hand, reading through sysfs for module version in order >> to use IOCTL A or B sounds quite hacky. Do you have an example where >> this is used or pointed out as good approach ? > > I don't know of anything doing it that way now. But it sure would be > easy and make a bit of sense. (We'd actually use the module version for > something useful.) Either way, it would really depend on if and how > things change in the future. The point is there are options to expand if > needed. > The part that nobody else is doing such a thing should ring a bell ;-) It's no my call, but if it was I'd stick with the existing approach and not "reinvent the wheel" sort of speak. Thanks Emil
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/1] DRAFT: New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-01-31 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 22:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-02-01 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 13:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-02-02 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:00 +0100
csiph-web