From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] remove duplicated ioctl entries in compat_ioctl.c
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:10:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070727191053.GA7572@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070727171301.GA16210@bougret.hpl.hp.com>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:13:01AM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> "John W. Linville" wrote :
> > 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>
> > 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?
>
> Actually, you are wrong, and Masakazu is right. All those
> ioctls contains a pointer and should go through the pointer
> conversion.
Masakazu replied in agreement that the COMPATIBLE_IOCTL entries are
the effective ones i.e. the code currently uses those entries and
the others are currently just wasting space.
Perhaps the HANDLE_IOCTL entries are indeed the correct and intended ones. You seem to be indicating so.
> The reason why Masakazu sent that patch is that he actually
> stumbled on the problem and tested it.
The only problem stated is the not-quite-duplicate entries. If there
is an actual problem (and not just sloppy code) then that makes the
situation more clear.
What is the manifestation of the problem?
> > 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?
>
> I don't understand, you are in favor of breaking the API ?
I'm not sure how an honest reading could imply that.
If this fixes a bug, then fine. If we are trading the one "duplicate"
entry we have been using for one that hasn't been in use, it doesn't
make much sense.
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-27 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-27 17:13 Re: [PATCH] remove duplicated ioctl entries in compat_ioctl.c Jean Tourrilhes
2007-07-27 19:10 ` John W. Linville [this message]
2007-07-27 21:58 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-07-30 12:02 ` Masakazu Mokuno
2007-07-30 14:47 ` John W. Linville
2007-07-30 18:37 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-07-31 4:45 ` Masakazu Mokuno
2007-07-31 16:55 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-08-07 7:41 ` Masakazu Mokuno
2007-08-07 17:51 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-09-12 4:36 ` Masakazu Mokuno
2007-09-12 13:43 ` John W. Linville
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070727191053.GA7572@tuxdriver.com \
--to=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=jt@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).