On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:29:42PM +0300, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Konstantin, *, good day. > > I noticed that the current ioctl processing code for drm2 implicitely > assumes that the number of native ioctls is higher than that of 32-bit > compat ones, so it immediately gives EINVAL when > nr >= dev->driver->max_ioctl. Seems that in future such assumption > may not be true in all cases. I very much doubt that it could become true. Compat32 ioctl cannot exist without its wider counterpart. > > This can be fixed with the following patch: > http://codelabs.ru/fbsd/patches/drm2/drm_drv-untangle-32bit-compat.diff > > Any thoughts on it? I think either current way or patch are fine, but why changing something which is fine ?Received on Fri Nov 28 2014 - 16:32:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:54 UTC