[PATCH] posix-clock: remove unneeded posix_clock_compat_ioctl()

[PATCH] posix-clock: remove unneeded posix_clock_compat_ioctl()

[Jungseung Lee]

posix_clock_compat_ioctl() is identical to posix_clock_ioctl().
We don't need additional compat_ioctl in this time.
Remove posix_clock_compat_ioctl() and let posix_clock_ioctl() is in charge.

Signed-off-by: Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@samsung.com>
---
 kernel/time/posix-clock.c |   22 ----------------------
 1 file changed, 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
index 9cff0ab..d46ac80 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
@@ -131,25 +131,6 @@ static long posix_clock_ioctl(struct file *fp,
 	return err;
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
-static long posix_clock_compat_ioctl(struct file *fp,
-				     unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
-{
-	struct posix_clock *clk = get_posix_clock(fp);
-	int err = -ENOTTY;
-
-	if (!clk)
-		return -ENODEV;
-
-	if (clk->ops.ioctl)
-		err = clk->ops.ioctl(clk, cmd, arg);
-
-	put_posix_clock(clk);
-
-	return err;
-}
-#endif
-
 static int posix_clock_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *fp)
 {
 	int err;
@@ -201,9 +182,6 @@ static const struct file_operations posix_clock_file_operations = {
 	.release	= posix_clock_release,
 	.fasync		= posix_clock_fasync,
 	.mmap		= posix_clock_mmap,
-#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
-	.compat_ioctl	= posix_clock_compat_ioctl,
-#endif
 };
 
 int posix_clock_register(struct posix_clock *clk, dev_t devid)
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: remove unneeded posix_clock_compat_ioctl()

[Richard Cochran]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:54:41PM +0900, Jungseung Lee wrote:
> posix_clock_compat_ioctl() is identical to posix_clock_ioctl().
> We don't need additional compat_ioctl in this time.
> Remove posix_clock_compat_ioctl() and let posix_clock_ioctl() is in charge.

Did you test this patch?  Did you run a 32 program using the ioctl on
a 64 bit kernel?

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: remove unneeded posix_clock_compat_ioctl()

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Jungseung Lee wrote:

> posix_clock_compat_ioctl() is identical to posix_clock_ioctl().
> We don't need additional compat_ioctl in this time.
> Remove posix_clock_compat_ioctl() and let posix_clock_ioctl() is in charge.

Which will return -ENOTTY for all affected ioctls simply because the ioctls
are not listed in the compatible list.

Thanks,

	tglx