Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
===================================================================
--- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
+++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
#ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
#define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
-#ifndef __KERNEL
+#ifndef __KERNEL__
#define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
#define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
#define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
@@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
unsigned char resevered[2];
unsigned char chksum;
} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
-#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
+#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
#endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
>
> Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
>
> -#ifndef __KERNEL
> +#ifndef __KERNEL__
> #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
> #define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
> #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
> @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
> unsigned char resevered[2];
> unsigned char chksum;
> } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
userspace unchecked:
include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
__KERNEL__ test in it.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> > Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> > ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
> >
> > Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> > #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> >
> > -#ifndef __KERNEL
> > +#ifndef __KERNEL__
> > #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
> > #define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
> > #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
> > @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
> > unsigned char resevered[2];
> > unsigned char chksum;
> > } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> > -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
> >
> > #endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
>
> if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> userspace unchecked:
>
> include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
>
> so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> __KERNEL__ test in it.
We don't want new (accidental etc.) kernel users of this header.
How's about this version?
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] linux/hdsmart.h: fix goofups (take 2)
Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
Also update include/linux/Kbuild to reflect the fact that hdsmart.h
uses __KERNEL__ ifdefs now.
Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/Kbuild | 2 +-
include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: b/include/linux/Kbuild
===================================================================
--- a/include/linux/Kbuild
+++ b/include/linux/Kbuild
@@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ header-y += fuse.h
header-y += genetlink.h
header-y += gen_stats.h
header-y += gigaset_dev.h
-header-y += hdsmart.h
header-y += hysdn_if.h
header-y += i2o-dev.h
header-y += i8k.h
@@ -211,6 +210,7 @@ unifdef-y += hayesesp.h
unifdef-y += hdlcdrv.h
unifdef-y += hdlc.h
unifdef-y += hdreg.h
+unifdef-y += hdsmart.h
unifdef-y += hiddev.h
unifdef-y += hpet.h
unifdef-y += i2c.h
Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
===================================================================
--- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
+++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
#ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
#define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
-#ifndef __KERNEL
+#ifndef __KERNEL__
#define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
#define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
#define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
@@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
unsigned char resevered[2];
unsigned char chksum;
} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
-#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
+#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
#endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> > > Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> > > ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
> > >
> > > Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> > > #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > > #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > >
> > > -#ifndef __KERNEL
> > > +#ifndef __KERNEL__
> > > #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
> > > #define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
> > > #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
> > > @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
> > > unsigned char resevered[2];
> > > unsigned char chksum;
> > > } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> > > -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> > > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
> > >
> > > #endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
> >
> > if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> > check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> > userspace unchecked:
> >
> > include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
> >
> > so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> > get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> > __KERNEL__ test in it.
>
> We don't want new (accidental etc.) kernel users of this header.
>...
Why can't we simply remove it?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 February 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> > > > ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> > > > #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > > > #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > > >
> > > > -#ifndef __KERNEL
> > > > +#ifndef __KERNEL__
> > > > #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
> > > > #define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
> > > > #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
> > > > @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
> > > > unsigned char resevered[2];
> > > > unsigned char chksum;
> > > > } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> > > > -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> > > > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
> > > >
> > > > #endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
> > >
> > > if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> > > check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> > > userspace unchecked:
> > >
> > > include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
> > >
> > > so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> > > get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> > > __KERNEL__ test in it.
> >
> > We don't want new (accidental etc.) kernel users of this header.
> >...
>
> Why can't we simply remove it?
If it is safe w.r.t. userspace then please do it.
[ I don't know and I couldn't get an answer on LKML so... ]
Thanks,
Bart
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Sunday 17 February 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fix goofups of commit 76166952bbc81dda1c8a8c14e75a2aa06f6c052c
> > > > > ("<linux/hdsmart.h> is not used by kernel code").
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/hdsmart.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Index: b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
> > > > > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> > > > > #ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > > > > #define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
> > > > >
> > > > > -#ifndef __KERNEL
> > > > > +#ifndef __KERNEL__
> > > > > #define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
> > > > > #define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
> > > > > #define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
> > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,6 @@ typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
> > > > > unsigned char resevered[2];
> > > > > unsigned char chksum;
> > > > > } __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
> > > > > -#endif /* __KERNEL__ *
> > > > > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
> > > > >
> > > > > #endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
> > > >
> > > > if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> > > > check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> > > > userspace unchecked:
> > > >
> > > > include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
> > > >
> > > > so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> > > > get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> > > > __KERNEL__ test in it.
> > >
> > > We don't want new (accidental etc.) kernel users of this header.
> > >...
> >
> > Why can't we simply remove it?
>
> If it is safe w.r.t. userspace then please do it.
>
> [ I don't know and I couldn't get an answer on LKML so... ]
>
> Thanks,
> Bart
i'll leave that decision in someone else's hands. have fun.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:17:20 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said:
> if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> userspace unchecked:
>
> include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
>
> so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> __KERNEL__ test in it.
Umm... if the kernel isn't using it, why are we bothering to export it to
userspace at all? Or is the kernel using something *else* that should be going
to userspace instead?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:17:20 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said:
>
> > if that header file isn't used by any kernel code, why bother having a
> > check for __KERNEL__ in the first place? it's being exported to
> > userspace unchecked:
> >
> > include/linux/Kbuild:header-y += hdsmart.h
> >
> > so why not just toss that check entirely? otherwise, you're going to
> > get a header file exported to userspace that has a superfluous
> > __KERNEL__ test in it.
>
> Umm... if the kernel isn't using it, why are we bothering to export
> it to userspace at all? Or is the kernel using something *else*
> that should be going to userspace instead?
beats me, i just observe 'em, i don't make those judgment calls. :-)
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 07:04:51PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Why can't we simply remove it?
>
> If it is safe w.r.t. userspace then please do it.
>
> [ I don't know and I couldn't get an answer on LKML so... ]
The purpose of the kernel userapce headers is to contain the interfaces
between the kernel and userspace.
If nothing in the kernel uses it there's not much value in keeping it.
Removal patch below.
> Thanks,
> Bart
cu
Adrian
<-- snip -->
include/linux/hdsmart.h is not used by the kernel and should therefore
be removed.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
include/linux/Kbuild | 1
include/linux/hdsmart.h | 126 ----------------------------------------
2 files changed, 127 deletions(-)
a93fe7221c62dbe655e646321a0f1f276f4d05f2 diff --git a/include/linux/Kbuild b/include/linux/Kbuild
index aada32f..0743c5e 100644
--- a/include/linux/Kbuild
+++ b/include/linux/Kbuild
@@ -210,7 +210,6 @@ unifdef-y += hayesesp.h
unifdef-y += hdlcdrv.h
unifdef-y += hdlc.h
unifdef-y += hdreg.h
-unifdef-y += hdsmart.h
unifdef-y += hiddev.h
unifdef-y += hpet.h
unifdef-y += i2c.h
diff --git a/include/linux/hdsmart.h b/include/linux/hdsmart.h
deleted file mode 100644
index 4f4faf9..0000000
--- a/include/linux/hdsmart.h
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,126 +0,0 @@
-/*
- * linux/include/linux/hdsmart.h
- *
- * Copyright (C) 1999-2000 Michael Cornwell <[email protected]>
- * Copyright (C) 2000 Andre Hedrick <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
- * any later version.
- *
- * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
- * (for example /usr/src/linux/COPYING); if not, write to the Free
- * Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
- */
-
-#ifndef _LINUX_HDSMART_H
-#define _LINUX_HDSMART_H
-
-#ifndef __KERNEL__
-#define OFFLINE_FULL_SCAN 0
-#define SHORT_SELF_TEST 1
-#define EXTEND_SELF_TEST 2
-#define SHORT_CAPTIVE_SELF_TEST 129
-#define EXTEND_CAPTIVE_SELF_TEST 130
-
-/* smart_attribute is the vendor specific in SFF-8035 spec */
-typedef struct ata_smart_attribute_s {
- unsigned char id;
- unsigned short status_flag;
- unsigned char normalized;
- unsigned char worse_normal;
- unsigned char raw[6];
- unsigned char reserv;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_attribute_t;
-
-/* smart_values is format of the read drive Atrribute command */
-typedef struct ata_smart_values_s {
- unsigned short revnumber;
- ata_smart_attribute_t vendor_attributes [30];
- unsigned char offline_data_collection_status;
- unsigned char self_test_exec_status;
- unsigned short total_time_to_complete_off_line;
- unsigned char vendor_specific_366;
- unsigned char offline_data_collection_capability;
- unsigned short smart_capability;
- unsigned char errorlog_capability;
- unsigned char vendor_specific_371;
- unsigned char short_test_completion_time;
- unsigned char extend_test_completion_time;
- unsigned char reserved_374_385 [12];
- unsigned char vendor_specific_386_509 [125];
- unsigned char chksum;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_values_t;
-
-/* Smart Threshold data structures */
-/* Vendor attribute of SMART Threshold */
-typedef struct ata_smart_threshold_entry_s {
- unsigned char id;
- unsigned char normalized_threshold;
- unsigned char reserved[10];
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_threshold_entry_t;
-
-/* Format of Read SMART THreshold Command */
-typedef struct ata_smart_thresholds_s {
- unsigned short revnumber;
- ata_smart_threshold_entry_t thres_entries[30];
- unsigned char reserved[149];
- unsigned char chksum;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_thresholds_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_errorlog_command_struct_s {
- unsigned char devicecontrolreg;
- unsigned char featuresreg;
- unsigned char sector_count;
- unsigned char sector_number;
- unsigned char cylinder_low;
- unsigned char cylinder_high;
- unsigned char drive_head;
- unsigned char commandreg;
- unsigned int timestamp;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_errorlog_command_struct_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_errorlog_error_struct_s {
- unsigned char error_condition;
- unsigned char extended_error[14];
- unsigned char state;
- unsigned short timestamp;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_errorlog_error_struct_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_errorlog_struct_s {
- ata_smart_errorlog_command_struct_t commands[6];
- ata_smart_errorlog_error_struct_t error_struct;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_errorlog_struct_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_errorlog_s {
- unsigned char revnumber;
- unsigned char error_log_pointer;
- ata_smart_errorlog_struct_t errorlog_struct[5];
- unsigned short ata_error_count;
- unsigned short non_fatal_count;
- unsigned short drive_timeout_count;
- unsigned char reserved[53];
- unsigned char chksum;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_errorlog_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_struct_s {
- unsigned char selftestnumber;
- unsigned char selfteststatus;
- unsigned short timestamp;
- unsigned char selftestfailurecheckpoint;
- unsigned int lbafirstfailure;
- unsigned char vendorspecific[15];
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_struct_t;
-
-typedef struct ata_smart_selftestlog_s {
- unsigned short revnumber;
- ata_smart_selftestlog_struct_t selftest_struct[21];
- unsigned char vendorspecific[2];
- unsigned char mostrecenttest;
- unsigned char resevered[2];
- unsigned char chksum;
-} __attribute__ ((packed)) ata_smart_selftestlog_t;
-#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
-
-#endif /* _LINUX_HDSMART_H */
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 07:04:51PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > Why can't we simply remove it?
> >
> > If it is safe w.r.t. userspace then please do it.
> >
> > [ I don't know and I couldn't get an answer on LKML so... ]
>
> The purpose of the kernel userapce headers is to contain the interfaces
> between the kernel and userspace.
>
> If nothing in the kernel uses it there's not much value in keeping it.
>
> Removal patch below.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Bart
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
>
> <-- snip -->
>
>
> include/linux/hdsmart.h is not used by the kernel and should therefore
> be removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
applied