Re: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no_llseek in ans-lcd

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:07:18PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> From 0c2b412cdccf73bdeb19bb866bfe556942eaeca2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:12 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no_llseek in ans-lcd
> 
> Now that we've removed the BKL here, let's explicitly set lleek to no_llseek
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/macintosh/ans-lcd.c |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/macintosh/ans-lcd.c b/drivers/macintosh/ans-lcd.c
> index 4ae8ec9..a1a1bde 100644
> --- a/drivers/macintosh/ans-lcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/macintosh/ans-lcd.c
> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ const struct file_operations anslcd_fops = {
>  	.write		= anslcd_write,
>  	.unlocked_ioctl	= anslcd_ioctl,
>  	.open		= anslcd_open,
> +	.llseedk	= no_llseek,


llseedk? :)


Should we better pushdown default_llseek to every to every
file operations that don't implement llseek?
I don't know how many of them don't implement llseek() though.

That said we can't continue anymore with this default attribution
of default_llseek() on new fops.