On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:21:26 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> We need to come up with the best possible layout of arguments for the
> fallocate() system call. Various architectures have different
> requirements for how the arguments should look like. Since the mail
> chain has become huge, here is the summary of various inputs received
> so far.
> 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:
> 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
> Option of loff_t => high u32 + low u32
> Matthew and Russell have suggested another option of breaking each
> "loff_t" into two "u32"s. This will result in 6 arguments in total.
> Following think that this is a good alternative:
> Matthew Wilcox, Russell King, Heiko Carstens
> Following do not like this idea:
> Chris Wedgwood
It's a bit weird-looking, but the six-32-bit-args approach is simple
enought to understand and implement. Presumably the glibc wrapper
would hide that detail from everyone.
> What are your thoughts on this ? What layout should we finalize on ?
> Perhaps, since sync_file_range() system call has similar arguments, we
> can take hint from the challenges faced on implementing it on various
> architectures, and decide.