From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262055AbTJSSV3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:21:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262061AbTJSSV3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:21:29 -0400 Received: from flock1.newmail.ru ([212.48.140.157]:29602 "HELO flock1.newmail.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262055AbTJSSV1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:21:27 -0400 From: Sinelnikov Evgeny Organization: Saratov State University To: cpb@log2.net Subject: Re: util-linux-2.12: did you find a fix? Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:26:11 +0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20031019060328.25277.qmail@log2.net> In-Reply-To: <20031019060328.25277.qmail@log2.net> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310192226.11583.linux4sin@mail.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I read your email on LKML about the problem compiling util-linux-2.12 > with linux-2.6.0-test5 headers (the problem with _IOC_TYPECHECK). > Did you find a way to fix the problem? If you solved it, could you tell > me how to fix the util-linux problem? I solved it so: asm/ioctl.h: ............... /* used to create numbers */ #define _IO(type,nr) _IOC(_IOC_NONE,(type),(nr),0) #define _IOR(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(type),(nr),(_IOC_TYPECHECK(size))) #define _IOW(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr),(_IOC_TYPECHECK(size))) #define _IOWR(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr),(_IOC_TYPECHECK(size))) #define _IOR_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(type),(nr),sizeof(size)) #define _IOW_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr),sizeof(size)) #define _IOWR_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr),sizeof(size)) ..................... I patched all files that contains next defines: _IOR, _IOW or _IOWR with _IOR_BAD, _IOW_BAD, _IOWR_BAD Really it is not right. But it would be so if I complie with 2.4.x headers sizeof(sizeof(anymore)) is sizeof(int). And threre was int. Thus it was right only there. Sin (Sinelnikov Evgeny)