On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:44:03AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 2016-07-18 23:27:49, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > The user space API is achieved via two synchronous IOCTL.
> >
> > IOCTLs?
>
> Will fix
>
> > > Simplified one, RPMB_IOC_REQ_CMD, were read result cycles is
> > performed
> > > by the framework on behalf the user and second, RPMB_IOC_SEQ_CMD
> > where
> > > the whole RPMB sequence including RESULT_READ is supplied by the caller.
> > > The latter is intended for easier adjusting of the applications
> > > that use MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD ioctl.
> >
> > Why " "?
> Not sure I there is enough clue in your question.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.wink...@intel.com>
> >
> > > +
> > > +static long rpmb_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned
> > > +long arg) {
> > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, (void __user *)arg); }
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > +static long rpmb_compat_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> > > + unsigned long arg)
> > > +{
> > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, compat_ptr(arg));
> > > +}
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */
> >
> > Description of the ioctl is missing,
> Will add.
>
> and it should certainly be designed in a way
> > that it does not need compat support.
>
> The compat_ioctl handler just casts the compat_ptr, I believe this
> should be done unless the ioctl is globaly registered in
> fs/compat_ioctl.c, but I might be wrong.
You shouldn't need a compat ioctl for anything new that is added, unless
your api is really messed up. Please test to be sure, and not use a
compat ioctl at all, it isn't that hard to do.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
