[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55FBE645.8030001@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:24:05 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC: linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Seshagiri Holi <sholi@...dia.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@...gle.com>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] mmc: block: Add new ioctl to send multi commands
On 17/09/15 07:59, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the
>>>> + * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray
>>>> + * between sibling partitions.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains))
>>>> + return -EPERM;
>>>
>>> This check is common for multi and non-multi. Please move it to the
>>> mmc_blk_ioctl() to avoid some code duplication.
>>
>> Yes that's true. I can move but it means also passing bdev to
>> __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() as another argument. It is not a big deal, but it
>> was more convenient to test here. If your preference is to consolidate
>> the tests to one place then I will move this test.
>
> I was suggesting to move it to mmc_blk_ioctl() and not to
> __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(). That shouldn't cause any changes to any
> function-definitions, right!?
Sorry, completely mis-read. Yes that makes sense, will update.
Cheers
Jon
--
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