On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:27:44AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote: > From: Youling Tang <[email protected]> > > It should be FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS instead of FS_IOC_GETFLAGS in > compat ioctl.
Do we by chance have a test for this? > > Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <[email protected]> > --- > fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c > index 3dc8630ff9fe..205a323ffc6d 100644 > --- a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ long bch2_compat_fs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned > cmd, unsigned long arg) > { > /* These are just misnamed, they actually get/put from/to user an int */ > switch (cmd) { > - case FS_IOC_GETFLAGS: > + case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS: > cmd = FS_IOC_GETFLAGS; > break; > case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS: > -- > 2.34.1 >
