On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:50:29 -0400 "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Yes. The latter one in the array is silently ignored. In our case, HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl) ignored. > 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? I'm not sure which is better to keep. We can keep COMPATIBLE_IOCTL entries if the userland apps could work around iw_point.pointer issue for these ioctls. -- Masakazu MOKUNO - 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
