Op 19-11-13 02:43, Paul Clements schreef:
>A get_capabilities() would be most useful, yes.
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> Op 18-11-13 23:17, Paul Clements schreef:
> [...]
> > Right, some rearrangement of the ioctls would be required too...we'd
> > probably want alternate versions of SET_SOCK and DO_IT that are
> > re-entrant (right now those will error on an already-configured
> device,
> > and they're doing some setup and teardown that is unneeded in the
> > reconnect case).
>
> Since all this is a significant departure of the current API, I suppose
> it would be good if there would be a way for the client to detect what
> the currently-running kernel supports, without having to resort to
> things like calling 'uname -r' (or equivalent in C code) or extensive
> error handling based on "that ioctl isn't supported, so let's fall back
> to previous API versions."
>
>
> Anything specific that would make it easier from your perspective? One
> thought is to have SET_FLAGS fail when an unknown flag is passed. Or
> say a get_capabilities() type call?