Hi!
> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 22:33:14 +0200
>
> What about this one: redefine it to (*ioctl)( ...., unsigned *long*,
> unsinged long). That means we can add
>
> #define IOCTL_COMPAT 0x1 0000 0000
>
> Bzzt! Doesn't work on 32-bit. COMPAT does not mean 64-bit-->32-bit
> translations, stop thinking about the compat layer in this way.
>
> It is a generic environment translation system.
>
> Eventually we can use it for things like IBCS2 and stuff like that.
I... do not think so.
You'd then need
.compat_linux32_ioctl
.compat_IBCS2_ioctl
...
I do not think that is doable.
> Suggest something sane like defining a macro such as
> "compat_task(tsk)" that can be tested by various bits of
> code.
That makes more sense. Unfortunately, that means that case "okay, it
is compatible" can not be told from "we did not bother to check
compat_task()". :-(. Nor do I see a transition phase.
Pavel
-- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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 - 22:00:29 EST