From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:40:58 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707)
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       apw@shadowen.org
References: <20080108164015.GC31504@one.firstfloor.org> <20080108185255.GA4627@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20080108191843.GA1004@one.firstfloor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080108191843.GA1004@one.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801090140.58864.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1172
Lines: 29

On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Thanks, Andi! I think it'd very useful change.
> 
> Reminds me this is something that should be actually flagged
> in checkpatch.pl too
> 
> Andy, it would be good if checkpatch.pl complained about .ioctl = 
> as opposed to .unlocked_ioctl = ...

This is rather hard, as there are different data structures that
all contain ->ioctl and/or ->unlocked_ioctl function pointers.
Some of them already use ->ioctl in an unlocked fashion only,
so blindly warning about this would give lots of false positives.
 
> Also perhaps if a whole new file_operations with a ioctl is added
> complain about missing compat_ioctl as a low prioritity warning?
> (might be ok if it's architecture specific on architectures without
> compat layer)

Also, not every data structure that provides a ->ioctl callback
also has a ->compat_ioctl, although there should be fewer exceptions
here.

	Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/