In the commit title: the description should be some sort of action, describing what the commit does. Using "should" doesn't make it clear the commit actually does that.
ACK.
This is not simply a matter of consistency: without using
user_uintptr_t, we cannot propagate capabilities in PCuABI. Because at least one proc_ioctl handler (cache_ioctl_procfs) expects the argument to be a pointer, we need to change the callback signature (otherwise we would have been better off not changing it).
I am aware of this, the wording is poor indeed.
We have avoided doing that for other compat ioctl callbacks, including
the main file_operations one, because it is semantically incorrect: in compat(64), the argument really is just an unsigned long.
Instead of changing this callback signature, it would be better to fix the existing code that sets a proc_compat_ioctl callback. AFAICT we only need to fix proc_bus_pci_ops, and we can do it in the same way as esas2r_proc_ops, i.e. by using the compat_*_ioctl helpers. proc_bus_pci_ioctl() does not expect a pointer, so we should use the compat_noptr_ioctl helper there. See [1] for more information.
Noted.
Pawel