On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:54:39PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote: > This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array > 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c > > These entries are registered twice like: > > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV) > > and > > HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl) > > > Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <mokuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/compat_ioctl.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > --- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c > +++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c > @@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV) > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS) > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP) > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE) > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS) As I read the code in compat_ioctl.c, it looks to me like the COMPATIBLE_IOCTL definitions are the ones that are actually being used today. Do you agree? Given the...stability...of the wireless extensions API, if we are going to remove one or the other of these not-quite-duplicate definitions, shouldn't we remove the HANDLE_IOCTL defintions instead? John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
