Re: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26

Alexey Dobriyan
2008-08-27T22:45:56Z

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > Easier just to fix it. Its a case of building everything until it
> > compiles with the prototype change. Almost all stuff will just take the
> > argument initially and not use it.
> >
> > Anyone else plan to do it or shall I hit all the x86 cases and post a
> > patch ?
>
> Well, I alrady reverted it, but if you actually fix unlocked_ioctl() to
> have the same calling convention as regular ioctl() then a lot of the
> noise from ioctl conversion goes away, and all that remains is literally
> just the BKL part.
>
> Btw, why is unlocked_ioctl returning "long"? Does anybody depend on that
> too? That's another difference between the "unlocked" and the traditional
> version..
>
> As to the "x86 cases", I think you should try to hit them all. Doing a
> "git grep unlocked_ioctl" gets 185 entries, and it looks like only
> something like 8 of them are non-x86 (3 in the arch/ directory, five in
> s390 drivers).
>
> Of course, some of them may be drivers that aren't available on x86 for
> other reasons (ie the ARM embedded stuff), but regardless..
>
> Anyway, the pure size of that patch makes me suspect that we might as well
> leave it until the next merge window, but if you do it and it's obviously
> totally mechanical, I'd be likely to just let it slip in early.

Anybody doing this, don't forget to actually use "inode" instead of all those
dereferences:

struct inode *inode = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode;