On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:21:21AM -0400, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> > From: On Behalf Of Alan Cox
> > > We could implement an entirely new TCSETS/TCGETS/TCSETSA/SAW
> > > which used
> > > different B* values so B9600 was 9600 etc and the data was stored in
> >
> > I think if a numeric baud rate is going to be supported, getting away
> > from the B* cruft is important. Just use a number.
>
> The "B* cruft" is part of POSIX so needs to be retained. These are
> used in conjunction with with cfgetispeed(), cfgetospeed(), cfsetispeed()
> and cfsetospeed() to alter the baud rate settings in the termios
> structure in an implementation defined manner.
The B* cruft has to be maintained.
But it would be POSIX complaint for B9600 to be #defined to B9600, and
B19200 to be #defined to B19200.
What would scare me though about doing something like would be
potential for the ABI changes. Not only do you have to worry about a
consistent set of ioctl's, structure definitions, and B* defines, but
you also have to worry about userspace libraries that use B* as part
of their interface, and expect user programs to pass B* constants to
the userspace library. (Say, some kind of conveience dialout library,
for example.)
In that case, the application could have been compiled with the
new-style termios.h, but the userspace library could have been
compiled with the old-style termios.h, and hence the old-style ioctl
definitions, and the opportunities for mischief are endless.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
