[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82861179-dfd5-4330-86cb-048d124487b0@t-8ch.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:22:49 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: Explicitly handle compat ioctls
On 2025-01-22 18:15:13+0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> A simpler variant of the patch would move the switch/case logic
> into posix_clock_compat_ioctl() and avoid the extra function
> pointer, simply calling posix_clock_ioctl() with the modified
> argument.
That would work, but be a layering violation.
Or a "compat_mode" argument to ptp_ioctl()
I'm fine with either approach.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists