Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:12 +0900 From: Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp> Subject: Re: Linuxulator MFC and VMware Message-ID: <200111120122.fAC1MCe07028@muse.sanewo.dyn.to> In-Reply-To: <xzpd72pnxl2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> (Dag-Erling Smorgrav's message of "11 Nov 2001 16:20:25 %2B0100") References: <20011107234409.XACFC0A8274C.C78F0C8A@mail.biglobe.ne.jp> <xzp3d3q8vsj.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <xzpy9li7etq.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200111110554.fAB5slK11221@muse.sanewo.dyn.to> <xzpd72pnxl2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <xzpd72pnxl2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> wrote: >Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp> writes: >> How should this be fixed? >Argh, it's not supposed to call linux_gifflags(), it's supposed to >pass the ioctl on. Look at linux_ioctl_private(). Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but when linux application does an ioctl(SIOCGIFFLAGS) over non-socket fd, linux_ioctl_socket is invoked directly from linux_ioctl(), isn't it? Should linux_ioctl_socket() return ENOIOCTL for non-socket fd and the range of ioctls for linux_ioctl_private() be expanded to cover SIOCGIFFLAGS, maybe? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111120122.fAC1MCe07028>