Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

[David Miller]

From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:09 +0100

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:11:41AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:59:08 +0100
>> 
>> >>  	}
>> >> -	chunk_array_ptr = (uint64_t *)(unsigned long)(cs->chunks);
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> >> +	if (is_compat_task())
>> > 
>> > Are the COMPAT ifdefs really needed? The compiler should optimize that
>> > away anyways on non compat aware architectures, shouldn't it?
>> 
>> There are no non-compat is_compat_task() definitions, nor are there
>> non-compat build definitions of compat_uptr_t and the assosciated
>> interfaces.
> 
> That seems wrong then, better fix that too? It would be certainly better
> than adding a lot of ifdefs.

That's usually done by seperating the compat code into a seperate
file and "obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += foo.o" in the Makefile.

That's not really possible here.

Sure, longer term we can provide those kinds of definitions to avoid
the ifdefs, but that's not what my change is about. :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/