xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:42:07 -0700
Cc: Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "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: <20070427174613.GA8228@osiris.ibm.com>
References: <20070330071417.GI355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070417125514.GA7574@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070427144327.GC22949@lazybastard.org> <20070427174613.GA8228@osiris.ibm.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
> having u32 arguments only?

Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.

> It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
> considered performance critical...

Right.

> It adds userspace overhead for one architecture. Every *trace and
> *libc needs special handling on s390 for this syscall. I would
> prefer to avoid this.

I'm not that bothered about it.  I would prefer it did use clean
64-bit arguments, but given it's a non-critical syscall I'm don't
think the aesthetics are worth impossing crud on s390 for.



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