On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Anybody doing this, don't forget to actually use "inode" instead of all those dereferences: struct inode *inode = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode; -- 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
