On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:43:28 +1000 Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Cox writes: > > > --- a/drivers/char/viocons.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/viocons.c > > @@ -705,10 +705,6 @@ static int viotty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, struct > > file *file, > > case KDSKBLED: > > return 0; > > } > > - /* FIXME: WTF is this being called for ??? */ > > - lock_kernel(); > > - ret = n_tty_ioctl(tty, file, cmd, arg); > > - unlock_kernel(); > > return ret; > > } > > I think you want "return -ENOIOCTLCMD" rather than "return ret" since > ret is uninitialized with your patch applied. I agree the call to > n_tty_ioctl is bogus but I think we just want to return -ENOIOCTLCMD. Agreed _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
