[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080827224556.GA2361@x200.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:45:56 +0400
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Peter Osterlund <petero2@...ia.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > Easier just to fix it. Its a case of building everything until it
> > compiles with the prototype change. Almost all stuff will just take the
> > argument initially and not use it.
> >
> > Anyone else plan to do it or shall I hit all the x86 cases and post a
> > patch ?
>
> Well, I alrady reverted it, but if you actually fix unlocked_ioctl() to
> have the same calling convention as regular ioctl() then a lot of the
> noise from ioctl conversion goes away, and all that remains is literally
> just the BKL part.
>
> Btw, why is unlocked_ioctl returning "long"? Does anybody depend on that
> too? That's another difference between the "unlocked" and the traditional
> version..
>
> As to the "x86 cases", I think you should try to hit them all. Doing a
> "git grep unlocked_ioctl" gets 185 entries, and it looks like only
> something like 8 of them are non-x86 (3 in the arch/ directory, five in
> s390 drivers).
>
> Of course, some of them may be drivers that aren't available on x86 for
> other reasons (ie the ARM embedded stuff), but regardless..
>
> Anyway, the pure size of that patch makes me suspect that we might as well
> leave it until the next merge window, but if you do it and it's obviously
> totally mechanical, I'd be likely to just let it slip in early.
Anybody doing this, don't forget to actually use "inode" instead of all those
dereferences:
struct inode *inode = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
--
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