Quoting r. Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > I'm all for it, but the way the patch below works, we could end up > > > > calling ->ioctl or ->unlocked_ioctl from the compat > > > > syscall, and we dont want that. > > > > > > Hmm, I didn't actually change how those are called. So if it's an issue, > > > then I don't think this patch introduces it. > > > > Sorry, you are right, we go to do_ioctl only if there are no > > callbacks. > > I suppose there is one case (not introduced by the patch). Not sure if > it's even a problem though: > > t->cmd matches, yet NULL t->handler. This will fall-thru to > the do_ioctl: case. I assume NULL handler is for case where no > conversion is needed, so it's not a problem? At least some callers of > register_ioctl32_conversion() pass NULL handler.
Yes, this is an by design, you put in a NULL handler to say: I dont need conversions, call my regular handlers. Some in-tree drivers do this. MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
