Re: [PATCH] remove duplicated ioctl entries in compat_ioctl.c

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:54:39PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
> This patch removes some duplicated wireless ioctl entries in the array
> 'struct ioctl_trans ioctl_start[]' of fs/compat_ioctl.c
> 
> These entries are registered twice like:
> 
> 	COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
> 
> and
> 
> 	HANDLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV, do_wireless_ioctl)
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masakazu Mokuno <mokuno@sm.sony.co.jp>
> ---
>  fs/compat_ioctl.c |    3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/compat_ioctl.c
> @@ -3156,12 +3156,9 @@ COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSENS)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSENS)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRANGE)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWPRIV)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWPRIV)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSTATS)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWSTATS)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWAP)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWAP)
> -COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWSCAN)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRATE)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCGIWRATE)
>  COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(SIOCSIWRTS)

As I read the code in compat_ioctl.c, it looks to me like the
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL definitions are the ones that are actually being
used today.  Do you agree?

Given the...stability...of the wireless extensions API, if we are going
to remove one or the other of these not-quite-duplicate definitions,
shouldn't we remove the HANDLE_IOCTL defintions instead?

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com