From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752726Ab1F3MoB (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:44:01 -0400 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.5]:52788 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751159Ab1F3Mnx (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:43:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:43:33 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Jaroslav Kysela , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, florian@linux-mips.org, Florian Fainelli , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SB16 build error. Message-ID: <20110630124333.GA9727@linux-mips.org> References: <20110630091754.GA12119@linux-mips.org> <20110630105254.GA25732@linux-mips.org> <20110630123212.GA6690@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > In userland an empty definition will be used for _IOC_TYPECHECK so there > > won't be an error. So userland already is already using the existing > > value for SNDRV_SB_CSP_IOCTL_LOAD_CODE ... > > Right. It has an invalid direction (3), but apps won't care such > details anyway. > > > With a crude hack like > > > > #define SNDRV_SB_CSP_IOCTL_LOAD_CODE \ > > _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,'H', 0x11, sizeof(struct snd_sb_csp_microcode)) > > > > error checking can be bypassed and all will be fine as long as the > > resulting value doesn't result in in a a duplicate case value - which it > > doesn't, at least not in my testing. > > > > Should work but isn't nice. > > Indeed. But which is uglier is hard to answer :) > > If you are fine with the hacked ioctl number above, I can put it > with some comments. This won't break anything, at least. Go ahead then and yes, this really deserves a comment. Ralf