xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:00:16 +0200
Cc: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703291854000.31834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070117094658.GA17390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070225022326.137b4875.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070301183445.GA7911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070316143101.GA10152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070316161704.GE8525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070317111036.GC29931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070321120425.GA27273@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070329115126.GB7374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703291854000.31834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux)
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:01:54PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mar 29 2007 17:21, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> >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
> 
> Quoting that...
>       |len -> r6 + second halve on stack
> 
> Then, is not this a gcc glitch? (IMO, it should put all of "len" on the 
> stack)

It _does_ put all of "len" on the stack. That is what I tried to explain
in the section that follows what you quoted.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>