![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hello! Quoting r. Lee Revell (rlrevell@joe-job.com) "Re: unregister_ioctl32_conversion and modules. ioctl32 revisited.": > On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 19:20 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:46:35 +0200, > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > There were two additional motivations for my patch: > > > 1. Make it possible to avoid the BKL completely by writing > > > an ioctl with proper internal locking. > > > 2. As noted by Juergen Kreileder, the compat hash does not work > > > for ioctls that encode additional information in the command, like this: > > > > > > #define EVIOCGBIT(ev,len) _IOC(_IOC_READ, 'E', 0x20 + ev, len) > > > > I like the idea very well. Other benifits in addition: > > > > How does this all relate to Ingo's ->unlocked_ioctl stuff which is "an > official way to do BKL-less ioctls"? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/14/53 > > Lee It conflicts :) When I wrote the original patch for 2.6.8.1 I didnt see the unlocked_ioctl.patch. unlocked_ioctl is the same as ioctl_native in my patch, except that 1. I added more documentation in several places :) (notably Documentation/filesystems/Locking) 2. I thought it a bit silly to name a function for what it does not do (does not take a lock), and we still need a call for the compat layer. My patch adds another call to enable special handling for 32 bit ioctls on 64 bit systems. I could look at porting to -rc3-mm1, unless we dont want to back unlocked_ioctl.patch off. What do people here think? MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||