From owner-freebsd-emulation  Sun Nov 11 17:22:25 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
Received: from muse.sanewo.dyn.to (pd3002b.tkyoea00.ap.so-net.ne.jp [61.211.0.43])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A27E37B431
	for <emulation@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from muse.sanewo.dyn.to (sanewo@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by muse.sanewo.dyn.to (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAC1MCe07028;
	Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:13 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from sanewo@muse.sanewo.dyn.to)
Message-Id: <200111120122.fAC1MCe07028@muse.sanewo.dyn.to>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Linuxulator MFC and VMware
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>
Cc: Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp>
From: Takanori Saneto <sanewo@ba2.so-net.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <xzpd72pnxl2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
 (Dag-Erling Smorgrav's message of "11 Nov 2001 16:20:25 +0100")
User-Agent: T-gnus/6.15.4 (based on Oort Gnus v0.04) (revision 08)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:12 +0900
Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-emulation.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-emulation>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-emulation>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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