Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:15:30 -0600 | From | Paul Fulghum <> | Subject | Re: compat_ioctl question |
| |
Arnd Bergmann wrote: > So you are interested in the MGSL_* set of ioctls, right? > AFAICS, they are all compatible, with the exception of > MGSL_IOCGPARAMS and MGSL_IOCSPARAMS. > > Fortunately, these two have different ioctl numbers on > 64 bit, so you can define a new > > #define MGSL_IOCSPARAMS32 _IOR(MGSL_MAGIC_IOC,0,struct _MGSL_PARAMS32) > #define MGSL_IOCGPARAMS32 _IOR(MGSL_MAGIC_IOC,1,struct _MGSL_PARAMS32) > > and handle both versions in the ioctl function.
I missed that approach, thanks.
> Yes, that would be the right solution. I've started this > some time ago, but never finished it: > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/1732.html > >> Currently the tty file ops do not include that and >> tty_io.c does not register a compat_ioctl(), instead >> relying on compat_ioctl.h and compat_ioctl.c > > Just adding the hook in tty_io.c should be trivial, please do that. > If you like, you can also move the vt ioctls in order to reduce > the size of fs/compat_ioctl.c.
I'll look at that.
You have given me precisely the information I need.
I just wanted to be sure I did not pursue a dead end and have people go 'ewwww... why did you do it that way?'
Thanks, Paul
- 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/
| |