Re: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl

[Bastian Blank <bastian@waldi.eu.org>]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:38:55PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>  static int
> -dasd_ioctl_api_version(struct block_device *bdev, int no, long args)
> +dasd_ioctl_api_version(void __user *argp)
>  {
>  	int ver = DASD_API_VERSION;
> -	return put_user(ver, (int __user *) args);
> +	return put_user(ver, (int *)argp);
>  }

Doesn't this need to be "int __user *"?

> +long
> +dasd_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>  {
> -	int i;
> +	int rval;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; dasd_ioctls[i].no != -1; i++)
> -		dasd_ioctl_no_unregister(NULL, dasd_ioctls[i].no,
> -					 dasd_ioctls[i].fn);
> +	lock_kernel();
> +	rval = dasd_ioctl(filp->f_dentry->d_inode, filp, cmd, arg);
> +	unlock_kernel();

The lock_kernel looks spurious.

Bastian

-- 
Conquest is easy. Control is not.
		-- Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror", stardate unknown

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature