[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080109014152.GJ2117@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:41:52 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...dowen.org
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:31:24PM -0400, Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> I imagined it would check for
> >>
> >> +struct file_operations ... = {
> >> + ...
> >> + .ioctl = ...
> >>
> >> That wouldn't catch the case of someone adding only .ioctl to an
> >> already existing file_operations which is not visible in the patch context,
> >> but that should be hopefully rare. The more common case is adding
> >> completely new operations
> >
> > Right, this would work fine. We can probably even have a list of
> > data structures that work like file_operations in this regard.
> >
>
> file_operations & block_device_operations are the only two that I can find.
There are a few like scsi_host_template that don't have a unlocked_ioctl yet,
but that is just something that needs to be fixed.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists