Hello Hugo,
Is this issue specific to the receive ioctl?
Because what you are describing applies to any user-kernel ioctl-based
interface, when you compile the user-space as 32-bit, which the kernel
space has been compiled as 64-bit. For that purpose, I believe, there
exists the compat_ioctl
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
Hello Hugo,
Is this issue specific to the receive ioctl?
Yes. Everything else I've tried has worked perfectly on that test
system. The issue is not pointer size (which is, I think, your
thunking idea below), but structure
The structure for BTRFS_SET_RECEIVED_IOCTL packs differently on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems. This means that it is impossible to use btrfs
receive on a system with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, because
the structure size (and hence the ioctl number) is different.
This patch adds a
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 06:26:11PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 05:55:27PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
The structure for BTRFS_SET_RECEIVED_IOCTL packs differently on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems. This means that it is impossible to use btrfs
receive on a system with a 64-bit
The structure for BTRFS_SET_RECEIVED_IOCTL packs differently on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems. This means that it is impossible to use btrfs
receive on a system with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, because
the structure size (and hence the ioctl number) is different.
This patch adds a
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 05:55:27PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
The structure for BTRFS_SET_RECEIVED_IOCTL packs differently on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems. This means that it is impossible to use btrfs
receive on a system with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, because
the structure size (and
