Re: [RFC] block_device_operations prototype changes

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:30:53AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 3) ->ioctl().  What a mess...  

Yup.

See also:
  Subject: [PATCH] dm: support ioctls on mapped devices: fix with fake file
  http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0606.2/2979.html

and related threads.

> First of all, we have 3 methods with different
> calling conventions:
> 	->ioctl(inode, file, cmd, arg)
> 	->unlocked_ioctl(inode, file, cmd, arg)

When I last looked it was:
  long (*unlocked_ioctl) (struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long);
with the lack of inode forcing dm to use ->ioctl (because file can be NULL when
only the block device is known) and immediately drop the pointless-for-us
lock!

Alasdair
-- 
agk@xxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/