[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef70688e-35a5-00a5-44e0-575bc18d1752@vodafone.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:08:25 +0100
From: Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add support for compat ioctl
Am 21.02.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Marek Szyprowski:
> Dear All,
>
> On 2017-02-21 15:37, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> On 2017-02-21 14:59, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 21.02.2017 um 14:21 schrieb Marek Szyprowski:
>>>> Add compat ioctl support to dma-buf. This lets one to use
>>>> DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC
>>>> ioctl from 32bit application on 64bit kernel. Data structures for
>>>> both 32
>>>> and 64bit modes are same, so there is no need for additional
>>>> translation
>>>> layer.
>>>
>>> Well I might be wrong, but IIRC compat_ioctl was just optional and
>>> if not specified unlocked_ioctl was called instead.
>>>
>>> If that is true your patch wouldn't have any effect at all.
>>
>> Well, then why I got -ENOTTY in the 32bit test app for this ioctl on
>> 64bit ARM64 kernel without this patch?
>>
>
> I've checked in fs/compat_ioctl.c, I see no fallback in
> COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3,
> so one has to provide compat_ioctl callback to have ioctl working with
> 32bit
> apps.
Then my memory cheated on me.
In this case the patch is Reviewed-by: Christian König
<christian.koenig@....com>.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> Best regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists