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 02:19:46 +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> <200801090140.58864.arnd@arndb.de> <20080109004748.GI2117@one.firstfloor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080109004748.GI2117@one.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801090219.46876.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 786
Lines: 21

On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I imagined it would check for 
> 
> +struct file_operations ... = { 
> + ? ? ?...
> +???????.ioctl = ...
> 
> That wouldn't catch the case of someone adding only .ioctl to an 
> already existing file_operations which is not visible in the patch context, 
> but that should be hopefully rare. The more common case is adding
> completely new operations

Right, this would work fine. We can probably even have a list of
data structures that work like file_operations in this regard.

	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/