Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- The return value of the new compat_ioctl methods should probably
'int', not 'long'. We've had the discussion before and then
decided not to change the existing compat_ioctl and
unlocked_ioctl functions -- even though int is more appropriate,
but having the same prototype
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- The return value of the new compat_ioctl methods should probably
'int', not 'long'. We've had the discussion before and then
decided not to change the existing compat_ioctl and
unlocked_ioctl functions -- even though int is more appropriate,
but having the same prototype
Paul Fulghum wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- In your driver you don't get the big kernel lock in the
compat_ioctl function. I assume that this is correct for
the particular driver, but it may be nice if you could
consequently also add an unlocked_ioctl function that can
be used without the BKL
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- The return value of the new compat_ioctl methods should probably
'int', not 'long'. We've had the discussion before and then
decided not to change the existing compat_ioctl and
unlocked_ioctl functions -- even though int is more appropriate,
but having the same prototype
Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Based on patch by Arnd Bergmann:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/1732.html
Signed-off-by: Paul Fulghum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Based on patch by Arnd Bergmann:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/1732.html
Signed-off-by: Paul Fulghum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Arnd
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- The return value of the new compat_ioctl methods should probably
'int', not 'long'. We've had the discussion before and then
decided not to change the existing compat_ioctl and
unlocked_ioctl functions -- even though int is more appropriate,
but having the same prototype
Paul Fulghum wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
- In your driver you don't get the big kernel lock in the
compat_ioctl function. I assume that this is correct for
the particular driver, but it may be nice if you could
consequently also add an unlocked_ioctl function that can
be used without the BKL
On Thursday 03 May 2007, Paul Fulghum wrote:
>
> > declarations should never be hidden inside of an #ifdef. If you want to be
> > extra clever here, you can do
>
> OK, I have no problem with that.
> A declaration without implementation won't generate a warning?
You only get a warning for static
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Looks ok mostly. Just some details:
...
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+ long (*compat_ioctl)(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * file,
+unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg);
+#endif
I wouldn't hide this inside of an #ifdef. The structures are
On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
> of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
> tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Looks ok mostly. Just some details:
> --- a/include/linux/tty_driver.h 2006-11-29
Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Based on patch by Arnd Bergmann:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/1732.html
This patch does not remove tty ioctl entries in
Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Based on patch by Arnd Bergmann:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/1732.html
This patch does not remove tty ioctl entries in
On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Paul Fulghum wrote:
Add compat_ioctl method for tty code to allow processing
of 32 bit ioctl calls on 64 bit systems by tty core,
tty drivers, and line disciplines.
Looks ok mostly. Just some details:
--- a/include/linux/tty_driver.h 2006-11-29
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Looks ok mostly. Just some details:
...
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+ long (*compat_ioctl)(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * file,
+unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg);
+#endif
I wouldn't hide this inside of an #ifdef. The structures are
On Thursday 03 May 2007, Paul Fulghum wrote:
declarations should never be hidden inside of an #ifdef. If you want to be
extra clever here, you can do
OK, I have no problem with that.
A declaration without implementation won't generate a warning?
You only get a warning for static
16 matches
Mail list logo
