Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

[Heiko Carstens]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:17AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:10:10AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Platform: s390
> > > --------------
> > > s390 prefers following layout:
> > > 
> > >    int fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
> > > 
> > > For details on why and how "int, int, loff_t, loff_t" is a problem on
> > > s390, please see Heiko's mail on 16th March. Here is the link:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg133595.html
> > > 
> > > Platform: ppc, arm
> > > ------------------
> > > ppc (32 bit) has a problem with "int, loff_t, loff_t, int" layout,
> > > since this will result in a pad between fd and offset, making seven
> > > arguments total - which is not supported by ppc32. It supports only
> > > 6 arguments. Thus the desired layout by ppc32 is:
> > > 
> > >    int fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> > > 
> > > Even ARM prefers above kind of layout. For details please see the
> > > definition of sys_arm_sync_file_range().
> > 
> > This is a clean-looking option.  Can s390 be changed to support seven-arg
> > syscalls?
> 
> Wouldn't
> int fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)
> work on both s390 and ppc/arm?  glibc will certainly wrap it and
> reorder the arguments as needed, so there is no need to keep fd first.

That would be fine for s390.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/