The uapi is the same on 32 and 64 bit, but the number isn't. Everyone
who botched this please re-read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.4-preprc-cpu/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.html
Also, the type argument for the ioctl macros is for the type the void
__user *arg pointer points at, which in this case would be the
variable-sized char[] of a 0 terminated string. So this was botched in
more than just the usual ways.
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
Cc: Chenbo Feng <fengc@google.com>
Cc: Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Cc: minchan@kernel.org
Cc: surenb@google.com
Cc: jenhaochen@google.com
Cc: Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Tested-by: Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
  [sumits: updated some checkpatch fixes, corrected author email]
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200407133002.3486387-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
 
 
                return ret;
 
-       case DMA_BUF_SET_NAME:
+       case DMA_BUF_SET_NAME_A:
+       case DMA_BUF_SET_NAME_B:
                return dma_buf_set_name(dmabuf, (const char __user *)arg);
 
        default:
 
 
 #define DMA_BUF_BASE           'b'
 #define DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC     _IOW(DMA_BUF_BASE, 0, struct dma_buf_sync)
+
+/* 32/64bitness of this uapi was botched in android, there's no difference
+ * between them in actual uapi, they're just different numbers.
+ */
 #define DMA_BUF_SET_NAME       _IOW(DMA_BUF_BASE, 1, const char *)
+#define DMA_BUF_SET_NAME_A     _IOW(DMA_BUF_BASE, 1, u32)
+#define DMA_BUF_SET_NAME_B     _IOW(DMA_BUF_BASE, 1, u64)
 
 #endif