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
> 

Reply via email to