Call compat_unimap_ioctl, not do_unimap_ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c b/drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c
index 29c651a..431c5c3 100644
--- a/drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c
+++ b/drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c
@@ -1530,7 +1530,7 @@ long vt_compat_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * file,
case PIO_UNIMAP:
case GIO_UNIMAP:
- ret = do_unimap_ioctl(cmd, up, perm, vc);
+ ret = compat_unimap_ioctl(cmd, up, perm, vc);
break;
/*
--
1.6.4.4
--
Andreas Schwab, [email protected]
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Call compat_unimap_ioctl, not do_unimap_ioctl.
That's a nice description of what the patch does, but why do we need to
do that? What is the problem here? What caused it?
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Call compat_unimap_ioctl, not do_unimap_ioctl.
>
> That's a nice description of what the patch does, but why do we need to
> do that?
It's a compat ioctl handler, so lets call the compat ioctl handler.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, [email protected]
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Hi!
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:21:14 +0200
Andreas Schwab <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg KH <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Call compat_unimap_ioctl, not do_unimap_ioctl.
> >
> > That's a nice description of what the patch does, but why do we need to
> > do that?
>
> It's a compat ioctl handler, so lets call the compat ioctl handler.
>
> Andreas.
>
Any other reasons? Why not rename the call then? That would be a
functional no-op with the same effect...
Sincerely,
Florian
p.s. maybe it is obvious if one looks at the code (i didnt), but it
should be described nonetheless in the commit-log!
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> A: Top-posting.
>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Monday 28 September 2009, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Greg KH <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Call compat_unimap_ioctl, not do_unimap_ioctl.
> >
> > That's a nice description of what the patch does, but why do we need to
> > do that?
>
> It's a compat ioctl handler, so lets call the compat ioctl handler.
>
My bad, sorry.
I broke it in e9216651 evidently, thanks for debugging this.
The compat_unimap_ioctl was originally called do_unimap_ioctl in
fs/compat_ioctl.h which got moved to drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c.
In that patch, the caller was not updated and consequently called
the native handler.
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Arnd <><