From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] mmc: block: Add new ioctl to send multi commands Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:24:05 +0100 Message-ID: <55FBE645.8030001@nvidia.com> References: <1442242844-6859-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <55F99261.60003@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:19038 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752450AbbIRKYV (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:24:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: linux-mmc , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Seshagiri Holi , Arnd Bergmann , Grant Grundler , Olof Johansson On 17/09/15 07:59, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> + /* >>>> + * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the >>>> + * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray >>>> + * between sibling partitions. >>>> + */ >>>> + if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains)) >>>> + return -EPERM; >>> >>> This check is common for multi and non-multi. Please move it to the >>> mmc_blk_ioctl() to avoid some code duplication. >> >> Yes that's true. I can move but it means also passing bdev to >> __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() as another argument. It is not a big deal, but it >> was more convenient to test here. If your preference is to consolidate >> the tests to one place then I will move this test. > > I was suggesting to move it to mmc_blk_ioctl() and not to > __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(). That shouldn't cause any changes to any > function-definitions, right!? Sorry, completely mis-read. Yes that makes sense, will update. Cheers Jon