Re: [2.6 patch] fat/dir.c: switch to struct __fat_fs_dirent

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Can you apply the patch below after your patch?

Ok.

> Since fat was the only user of struct dirent in the kernel (there's an 
> unused JFS #define I'll also kill) we can then get rid of the 
> conflicting structs.

Sounds good. Thanks.

> <--  snip  -->
>
>
> struct __fat_fs_dirent is what was formerly the kernel struct dirent
> (that was different from the userspace struct dirent).
>
> Converting all fat users to struct __fat_fs_dirent will allow us to get 
> rid of the conflicting struct dirent definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
>  fs/fat/dir.c |    7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> b8c595b4b225c2485d8dbc7ff4cbcdc8e6113672 diff --git a/fs/fat/dir.c b/fs/fat/dir.c
> index 486725e..041a112 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/fat/dir.c
> @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/time.h>
>  #include <linux/msdos_fs.h>
> -#include <linux/dirent.h>
>  #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
>  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
>  #include <linux/compat.h>
> @@ -715,7 +714,7 @@ efault:									   \
>  	return -EFAULT;							   \
>  }
>  
> -FAT_IOCTL_FILLDIR_FUNC(fat_ioctl_filldir, dirent)
> +FAT_IOCTL_FILLDIR_FUNC(fat_ioctl_filldir, __fat_fs_dirent)
>  
>  static int fat_ioctl_readdir(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>  			     void __user *dirent, filldir_t filldir,
> @@ -741,7 +740,7 @@ static int fat_ioctl_readdir(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>  static int fat_dir_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>  			 unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>  {
> -	struct dirent __user *d1 = (struct dirent __user *)arg;
> +	struct __fat_fs_dirent __user *d1 = (struct __fat_fs_dirent __user *)arg;
>  	int short_only, both;
>  
>  	switch (cmd) {
> @@ -757,7 +756,7 @@ static int fat_dir_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>  		return fat_generic_ioctl(inode, filp, cmd, arg);
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, d1, sizeof(struct dirent[2])))
> +	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, d1, sizeof(struct __fat_fs_dirent[2])))
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  	/*
>  	 * Yes, we don't need this put_user() absolutely. However old
>

-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/