From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net ([91.121.27.225]) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PnV5F-0003NY-7u for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:53:14 +0000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:50:14 +0100 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20110210115014.GD11255@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1297308720-26390-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1297308720-26390-3-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20110210071225.GP9041@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110210071225.GP9041@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] driver/memmap: fix generic_memmap_rw and generic_memmap_ro To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 08:12 Thu 10 Feb , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:31:59AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > we check before the RW access for generic_memmap_ro instead of > > generic_memmap_rw > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > --- > > drivers/base/driver.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c > > index ff92e44..bd7464e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c > > @@ -223,8 +223,6 @@ int generic_memmap_ro(struct cdev *cdev, void **map, int flags) > > if (!cdev->dev) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - if (flags & PROT_WRITE) > > - return -EACCES; > > *map = (void *)cdev->dev->map_base; > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -234,6 +232,9 @@ int generic_memmap_rw(struct cdev *cdev, void **map, int flags) > > if (!cdev->dev) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > + if (flags & PROT_WRITE) > > + return -EACCES; > > + > > So instead of allowing write access in the read/write function we now > allow it in the readonly function? I'm afraid I don't understand this. PROT_WRITE means ro no? Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox