Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] tee: generic TEE subsystem

From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	javier@javigon.com, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, valentin.manea@huawei.com,
	jean-michel.delorme@st.com, emmanuel.michel@st.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] tee: generic TEE subsystem
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:20:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1429341658.16771.123.camel@x220> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2102140.2VHBUJBHNB@wuerfel>

On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 22:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 17 April 2015 09:50:56 Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > +static const struct file_operations tee_fops = {
> > +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +	.open = tee_open,
> > +	.release = tee_release,
> > +	.unlocked_ioctl = tee_ioctl
> > +};
> 
> Add a .compat_ioctl function, to make it work on arm64 as well.
> If you got all the data structures right, you can use the same
> tee_ioctl function.
> 
> Minor nit: put a comma behind the last line in each struct initialization
> to make it easier to add another callback.

And another nit: this is built-in only code, right? So, according to
include/linux/export.h, THIS_MODULE will be basically equivalent to
NULL. So I think you can drop that line.

Thanks,

Paul Bolle