Re: kextload failure on 10.5
Re: kextload failure on 10.5
- Subject: Re: kextload failure on 10.5
- From: Chris Suter <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:34:36 +1000
Hi Terry,
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Terry Lambert <email@hidden> wrote:
> For example, if you needed to pass a pointer, you would declare the field as
> a uint64_t (unsigned long long), cat the pointer to a uintptr_t, and then
Or user_addr_t and CAST_USER_ADDR_T perhaps?
> PS: This goes for things like ioctl(2) parameters, as well; if they are size
> variant, you will find yourself implementing separate 32 and 64 bit versions
> of the ioctl(2) command value in the kernel so that you can deal with both
> 32 and 64 bit clients; otherwise, the ioctl(2) case statement number will
> not match, and it will look like it's an unrecognized ioctl(2) when you call
> it from a binary of the "wrong" bitness.
Is that right? The command value appears to be 32 bit regardless of
architecture. We use an ioctl in our code and don't use different
command values and it appears to work. (We obviously take care of the
parameters.) Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Kind regards,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden