Gerd Knorr wrote:
> ioctl struct size and the ioctl number (which has the size encoded)
> should end up being different too. Anyone aware of corner cases where
> this isn't going to work?
About half of the ioctls that need special care have fixed numbers
instead of using _IOR() etc, see e.g. include/linux/sockios.h,
or they get the definition wrong in some way.
The way you do it in your patch could work for many cases, but it
won't be enough to eliminate HANDLE_IOCTL(), if that is desired.
Adding fops->compat_ioctl() makes it possible to eventually replace
all HANDLE_IOCTL() and keep only COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(), which in turn
would become simpler to deal with.
If we don't add fops->compat_ioctl(), the ioctl handlers could
however look at (current_thread_info()->flags & _TIF_32BIT) to find
out if which user data structure they should expect. Is that reliable?
Do we already have a macro to do it?
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST