[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
From: Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:44:49 +0200
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <17932.54606.323431.491736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070225022326.137b4875.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070301183445.GA7911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070316143101.GA10152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070316161704.GE8525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070317111036.GC29931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070321120425.GA27273@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070329115126.GB7374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070329101010.7a2b8783.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070330071929.GC8365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17932.54606.323431.491736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, 30 March 2007 19:15:58 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Heiko Carstens writes:
> > If possible I'd prefer the six-32-bit-args approach.
> It does mean extra unnecessary work for 64-bit platforms, though...

Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()?  If I understand Heiko
correctly, the alternative would slow s390 down for every syscall,
including more performance-critical ones.


tglx1 thinks that joern should get a (TM) for "Thinking Is Hard"
-- Thomas Gleixner

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