On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote: > You would have to do something like this (untested): > > int foo_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, u64 mask, > int dfd, const char __user * pathname) > { > u32 mask_low = (u32)mask; > u32 mask_high = (u32)(mask >> 32); > > return syscall(4337, fanotify_fd, flags, mask_low, mask_high, dfd, > pathname); > > } > > The order of mask_low, mask_high in the syscall argument list > depends on the endianness. Figuring out the correct order is left > as an exercise for the reader.
That's basically the same patch as this one, right? http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20110420/be2d393b/attachment.obj It has been suggested that this patch would also work fine on other 32bit CPUs, is that correct? More specifically, will this break x86? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel