On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:41 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:01 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:49 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > > > index 2bcef4c70183..e4bf5e480d60 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > > > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_readlinkat(int dfd, const char __user *path, char __user *bu
> > > > asmlinkage long sys_newfstatat(int dfd, const char __user *filename,
> > > > struct stat __user *statbuf, int flag);
> > > > asmlinkage long sys_newfstat(unsigned int fd, struct stat __user *statbuf);
> > > > -#if defined(__ARCH_WANT_STAT64) || defined(__ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_STAT64)
> > > > +#if defined(__ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT) || defined(__ARCH_WANT_STAT64)
> > > > asmlinkage long sys_fstat64(unsigned long fd, struct stat64 __user *statbuf);
> > > > asmlinkage long sys_fstatat64(int dfd, const char __user *filename,
> > > > struct stat64 __user *statbuf, int flag);
> > >
> > > I think this is wrong: when __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT is set, we are
> > > on a 64-bit architecture and only want the sys_newfstat{,at} system
> > > calls, not sys_fstat{,at}64 that gets used on 32-bit machines.
> >
> > Ah, that would make sense then. I don't think you will see the error then.
>
> So we don't need this patch to build riscv32 kernels, right? It's possible
> that it was the result of an incorrect forward port of some other patch,
> as older riscv32 kernels did provide stat64(), but newer ones only have
> statx().
The issue came up when I was just changing some things for testing and
I thought it was a bug that others might run into. It isn't directly
related to the riscv32 kernel.
Alistair
>
> Arnd
