Re: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:06:57 +0530 Kirti Wankhede wrote: > Thanks Paul for catching this. > > In that case we should go with 'long' since mdev_parent_ops->ioctl() is > called from vfio_device_ops->ioctl() for which the return type is 'long'. Agreed, we're mirroring the

Re: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:06:57 +0530 Kirti Wankhede wrote: > Thanks Paul for catching this. > > In that case we should go with 'long' since mdev_parent_ops->ioctl() is > called from vfio_device_ops->ioctl() for which the return type is 'long'. Agreed, we're mirroring the struct file_operations

Re: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

Thanks Paul for catching this. In that case we should go with 'long' since mdev_parent_ops->ioctl() is called from vfio_device_ops->ioctl() for which the return type is 'long'. Thanks, Kirti On 1/4/2017 1:06 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > What appears to be a copy and paste error from the line

Re: [PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

Thanks Paul for catching this. In that case we should go with 'long' since mdev_parent_ops->ioctl() is called from vfio_device_ops->ioctl() for which the return type is 'long'. Thanks, Kirti On 1/4/2017 1:06 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > What appears to be a copy and paste error from the line

[PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

What appears to be a copy and paste error from the line above gets the ioctl a ssize_t return value instead of the traditional "int". The associated sample code used "long" which meant it would compile for x86-64 but not i386, with the latter failing as follows: CC [M]

[PATCH] vfio-mdev: fix non-standard ioctl return val causing i386 build fail

What appears to be a copy and paste error from the line above gets the ioctl a ssize_t return value instead of the traditional "int". The associated sample code used "long" which meant it would compile for x86-64 but not i386, with the latter failing as follows: CC [M]