From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mAK1t01m030052 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:55:00 -0600 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C9BB51B29646 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AAz6BDc1LuOUTHdE for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:54:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4924C36B.6090700@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:54:51 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 01/11] Move compat ioctl structs & numbers into xfs_ioctl32.h References: <20081119044401.573365619@sandeen.net> <20081119044907.776640320@sandeen.net> <20081119145941.GA13050@infradead.org> <49242FAC.2060208@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <49242FAC.2060208@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I must also say that I don't really like these _copying helpers at all, >> just adding an explicit call to the underlying ioctl from them seems >> much clener than dispatching control back to the main routine with a >> changed argument and ioc number. > > Ok, either way is fine by me, was just following what was there already. So I went off to do it this way, and while I certainly can, (I'm almost done rewriting it this way) after a bit more thought I really don't see much wrong with just translating in the 32-bit args for any ioctl which is _IOW only... it doesn't seem that bad... any particular reason you're against it? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs