On 30/04/2024 11:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
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?
Just reading the code found this out.
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
