On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Thanks, Andi! I think it'd very useful change.
>
> Reminds me this is something that should be actually flagged
> in checkpatch.pl too
>
> Andy, it would be good if checkpatch.pl complained about .ioctl =
> as opposed to .unlocked_ioctl = ...
This is rather hard, as there are different data structures that
all contain ->ioctl and/or ->unlocked_ioctl function pointers.
Some of them already use ->ioctl in an unlocked fashion only,
so blindly warning about this would give lots of false positives.
> Also perhaps if a whole new file_operations with a ioctl is added
> complain about missing compat_ioctl as a low prioritity warning?
> (might be ok if it's architecture specific on architectures without
> compat layer)
Also, not every data structure that provides a ->ioctl callback
also has a ->compat_ioctl, although there should be fewer exceptions
here.
Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
