| To: | "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call |
| From: | Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Apr 2007 03:58:20 -0600 |
| Cc: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070405112619.GA19982@amitarora.in.ibm.com> |
| Mail-followup-to: | "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20070225022326.137b4875.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070301183445.GA7911@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070316143101.GA10152@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070316161704.GE8525@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070317111036.GC29931@parisc-linux.org> <20070321120425.GA27273@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329115126.GB7374@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329101010.7a2b8783.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070330071417.GI355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070405112619.GA19982@amitarora.in.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Apr 05, 2007 16:56 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> This should work on all the platforms. The only concern I can think of
> here is the convention being followed till now, where all the entities on
> which the action has to be performed by the kernel (say fd, file/device
> name, pid etc.) is the first argument of the system call. If we can live
> with the small exception here, fine.
Yes, it is much cleaner to have fd first, like every other such syscall.
> Or else, we may have to implement the
>
> int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len
>
> as the layout of arguments here. I think only s390 will have a problem
> with this, and we can think of a workaround for it (may be similar to
> what ARM did to implement sync_file_range() system call) :
>
> asmlinkage long sys_s390_fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int
> mode)
> {
> return sys_fallocate(fd, offset, len, mode);
> }
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Randy Dunlap |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS Resiliency to the disk errors., Peter Grandi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Randy Dunlap |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Paul Mackerras |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |