On 4/20/15 12:33 AM, xuw2015@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: George Wang <xuw2015@xxxxxxxxx> > > PPC64 arch use such following IOC values " > \#define _IOC_NONE 1U > \#define _IOC_READ 2U > \#define _IOC_WRITE 4U > " comparing to the default IOC values " > \#define _IOC_NONE 0U > \#define _IOC_READ 2U > \#define _IOC_WRITE 1U" > > This means the value "_IOW*" will be negative when we store it in the int > variables. Such as the "BTRFS_IOC_QGROUP_CREATE", it will be "0x4010942e" on > X86_64, but "0x8010942e" on PPC64. > Notice that the IOC values are the "unsigned long" type, so we use the > "unsigned long" to store it, and this can insure the comparison between the > variable and BTRFS_IOC_* valid. Looks good - very strange that the manpage states that the interface takes an int. :( But - an "unsigned int" would be enough, right? I don't think it needs to be an unsigned long. *shrug* Thanks, -Eric > Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > cmds-quota.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/cmds-quota.c b/cmds-quota.c > index 89cc89c..f6a1cfa 100644 > --- a/cmds-quota.c > +++ b/cmds-quota.c > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int cmd_quota_rescan(int argc, char **argv) > int e; > char *path = NULL; > struct btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan_args args; > - int ioctlnum = BTRFS_IOC_QUOTA_RESCAN; > + unsigned long ioctlnum = BTRFS_IOC_QUOTA_RESCAN; > DIR *dirstream = NULL; > int wait_for_completion = 0; > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
