>
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:44:03AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 2016-07-18 23:27:49, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > The user space API is achieved via two synchronous IOCTL.
> > >
> > > IOCTLs?
> >
> > Will fix
> >
> > > > Simplified one, RPMB_IOC_REQ_CMD, were read result cycles is
> > > performed
> > > > by the framework on behalf the user and second, RPMB_IOC_SEQ_CMD
> > > where
> > > > the whole RPMB sequence including RESULT_READ is supplied by the
> caller.
> > > > The latter is intended for easier adjusting of the applications
> > > > that use MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD ioctl.
> > >
> > > Why " "?
> > Not sure I there is enough clue in your question.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.wink...@intel.com>
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +static long rpmb_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> > > > +unsigned long arg) {
> > > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, (void __user *)arg); }
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > > +static long rpmb_compat_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> > > > + unsigned long arg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, compat_ptr(arg));
> > > > +}
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */
> > >
> > > Description of the ioctl is missing,
> > Will add.
> >
> > and it should certainly be designed in a way
> > > that it does not need compat support.
> >
> > The compat_ioctl handler just casts the compat_ptr, I believe this
> > should be done unless the ioctl is globaly registered in
> > fs/compat_ioctl.c, but I might be wrong.
>
> You shouldn't need a compat ioctl for anything new that is added, unless
> your api is really messed up. Please test to be sure, and not use a compat
> ioctl at all, it isn't that hard to do.
compat_ioctl is called anyhow when CONFIG_COMPAT is set, there is no way around
it, or I'm missing something?
Actually there is no more than that for the COMPAT support in this code.
Thanks
Tomas
