On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > > Easier just to fix it. Its a case of building everything until it > compiles with the prototype change. Almost all stuff will just take the > argument initially and not use it. > > Anyone else plan to do it or shall I hit all the x86 cases and post a > patch ? Well, I alrady reverted it, but if you actually fix unlocked_ioctl() to have the same calling convention as regular ioctl() then a lot of the noise from ioctl conversion goes away, and all that remains is literally just the BKL part. Btw, why is unlocked_ioctl returning "long"? Does anybody depend on that too? That's another difference between the "unlocked" and the traditional version.. As to the "x86 cases", I think you should try to hit them all. Doing a "git grep unlocked_ioctl" gets 185 entries, and it looks like only something like 8 of them are non-x86 (3 in the arch/ directory, five in s390 drivers). Of course, some of them may be drivers that aren't available on x86 for other reasons (ie the ARM embedded stuff), but regardless.. Anyway, the pure size of that patch makes me suspect that we might as well leave it until the next merge window, but if you do it and it's obviously totally mechanical, I'd be likely to just let it slip in early. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
