Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:41:52 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       apw@shadowen.org
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
Message-ID: <20080109014152.GJ2117@one.firstfloor.org>
References: <20080108164015.GC31504@one.firstfloor.org> <200801090140.58864.arnd@arndb.de> <20080109004748.GI2117@one.firstfloor.org> <200801090219.46876.arnd@arndb.de> <478423EC.5020000@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <478423EC.5020000@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1131
Lines: 29

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:31:24PM -0400, Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> file_operations & block_device_operations are the only two that I can find.

There are a few like scsi_host_template that don't have a unlocked_ioctl yet,
but that is just something that needs to be fixed.

-Andi
--
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/