This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array
'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c
These entries are registered twice like:
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
and
HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl)
Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <[email protected]>
---
fs/compat_ioctl.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c
@@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV)
-COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS)
-COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP)
-COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS)
--
Masakazu MOKUNO
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:04:29PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch does not look to be applied. Is it better that I would submit
> to other place?
No, this is the right place. I've got the patch. I just had a lot
of other patches to process, and this one didn't seem to be urgent.
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:54:39PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
> This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array
> 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c
>
> These entries are registered twice like:
>
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
>
> and
>
> HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl)
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/compat_ioctl.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> @@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS)
As I read the code in compat_ioctl.c, it looks to me like the
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL definitions are the ones that are actually being
used today. Do you agree?
Given the...stability...of the wireless extensions API, if we are going
to remove one or the other of these not-quite-duplicate definitions,
shouldn't we remove the HANDLE_IOCTL defintions instead?
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
Hi,
This patch does not look to be applied. Is it better that I would submit
to other place?
regards
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:54:39 +0900
Masakazu Mokuno <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array
> 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c
>
> These entries are registered twice like:
>
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
>
> and
>
> HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl)
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/compat_ioctl.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> @@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS)
>
>
> --
> Masakazu MOKUNO
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Masakazu MOKUNO
> This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in
> the array 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of
> fs/compat_ioctl.c
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
Maybe you remove the double COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE) as
well?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:50:29 -0400
"John W. Linville" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:54:39PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
> > This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array
> > 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c
> >
> > These entries are registered twice like:
> >
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
> >
> > and
> >
> > HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl)
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/compat_ioctl.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> > +++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> > @@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV)
> > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS)
> > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP)
> > -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS)
>
> As I read the code in compat_ioctl.c, it looks to me like the
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL definitions are the ones that are actually being
> used today. Do you agree?
Yes. The latter one in the array is silently ignored. In our case,
HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl) ignored.
> Given the...stability...of the wireless extensions API, if we are going
> to remove one or the other of these not-quite-duplicate definitions,
> shouldn't we remove the HANDLE_IOCTL defintions instead?
I'm not sure which is better to keep.
We can keep COMPATIBLE_IOCTL entries if the userland apps could work
around iw_point.pointer issue for these ioctls.
--
Masakazu MOKUNO
Forget my mail, I wasn' seening the tiny C/G difference