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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- References:
- [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc2 powerpc timestamp skew
- Next by Date: Re: max symlink = 5? ?bug? ?feature deficit?
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dasd: cleanup dasd_ioctl
- Index(es):
 |