Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:03:08 +0100 | From | Bastian Blank <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl |
| |
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:38:55PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > static int > -dasd_ioctl_api_version(struct block_device *bdev, int no, long args) > +dasd_ioctl_api_version(void __user *argp) > { > int ver = DASD_API_VERSION; > - return put_user(ver, (int __user *) args); > + return put_user(ver, (int *)argp); > }
Doesn't this need to be "int __user *"?
> +long > +dasd_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > { > - int i; > + int rval; > > - for (i = 0; dasd_ioctls[i].no != -1; i++) > - dasd_ioctl_no_unregister(NULL, dasd_ioctls[i].no, > - dasd_ioctls[i].fn); > + lock_kernel(); > + rval = dasd_ioctl(filp->f_dentry->d_inode, filp, cmd, arg); > + unlock_kernel();
The lock_kernel looks spurious.
Bastian
-- Conquest is easy. Control is not. -- Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror", stardate unknown [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |