Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:29:29 -0400 | From | Kevin Easton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] fs: provide a generic compat_sys_truncate64() implementation |
| |
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 05:10:52PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > The compat_sys_truncate64() implementations in mips, powerpc, s390, sparc > and x86 only differed based on whether the u64 parameter needed padding > and on its endianness. >
...
> +#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_TRUNCATE64 > +#if defined(__ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_WITH_PADDING) && \ > + defined(__ARCH_WANT_LE_COMPAT_SYS) > +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(truncate64, const char __user *, filename, u32 padding, > + unsigned int, offset_low, unsigned int, offset_high) > +#elif defined(__ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_WITH_PADDING) && \ > + !defined(__ARCH_WANT_LE_COMPAT_SYS) > +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(truncate64, const char __user *, filename, u32 padding, > + unsigned int, offset_high, unsigned int, offset_low)
Notwithstanding the other comments, shouldn't there be a comma between 'u32' and 'padding' in those?
- Kevin
| |