On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 05:10:52PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> The compat_sys_truncate64() implementations in mips, powerpc, s390, sparc
> and x86 only differed based on whether the u64 parameter needed padding
> and on its endianness.
>
...
> +#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_TRUNCATE64
> +#if defined(__ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_WITH_PADDING) && \
> + defined(__ARCH_WANT_LE_COMPAT_SYS)
> +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(truncate64, const char __user *, filename, u32 padding,
> + unsigned int, offset_low, unsigned int, offset_high)
> +#elif defined(__ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_WITH_PADDING) && \
> + !defined(__ARCH_WANT_LE_COMPAT_SYS)
> +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(truncate64, const char __user *, filename, u32 padding,
> + unsigned int, offset_high, unsigned int, offset_low)
Notwithstanding the other comments, shouldn't there be a comma between
'u32' and 'padding' in those?
- Kevin
