Re: RFC: Ioctl v2
From: Jan Engelhardt <hidden>
Date: 2022-06-09 22:03:04
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml, netdev
From: Jan Engelhardt <hidden>
Date: 2022-06-09 22:03:04
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml, netdev
On Friday 2022-05-20 18:16, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Problems with ioctls: * There's no namespacing, and ioctl numbers clash IOCTL v2 proposal: * Namespacing To solve the namespacing issue, I want to steal an approach I've seen from OpenGL, where extensions are namespaced: an extension will be referenced by name where the name is vendor.foo, and when an extension becomes standard it gets a new name (arb.foo instead of nvidia.foo, I think? it's been awhile). To do this we'll need to define ioctls by name, not by hardcoded number, [...]
https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.3-extensions/man/html/VK_NV_glsl_shader.html Right there on the front matter: "Registered number #13". https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.3/styleguide.html "All extensions must be registered with Khronos." "Each extension is assigned a range of values that can be used to create globally-unique enum values"