[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Thanks, Andi! I think it'd very useful change.
> Reminds me this is something that should be actually flagged
> in too
> Andy, it would be good if complained about .ioctl =
> as opposed to .unlocked_ioctl = ...

This is rather hard, as there are different data structures that
all contain ->ioctl and/or ->unlocked_ioctl function pointers.
Some of them already use ->ioctl in an unlocked fashion only,
so blindly warning about this would give lots of false positives.

> Also perhaps if a whole new file_operations with a ioctl is added
> complain about missing compat_ioctl as a low prioritity warning?
> (might be ok if it's architecture specific on architectures without
> compat layer)

Also, not every data structure that provides a ->ioctl callback
also has a ->compat_ioctl, although there should be fewer exceptions

Arnd <><

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-09 01:43    [W:0.047 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site