xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

To: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:10:03 +0200
Cc: torvalds@xxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com>
References: <20070321120425.GA27273@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329115126.GB7374@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329101010.7a2b8783.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <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>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
> interface for fallocate() system call:
> 
>  asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> 
> It seems that only s390 architecture has a problem with such a layout of
> arguments in fallocate(). Thus for s390, we plan to have a wrapper
> (say, sys_s390_fallocate()) for the sys_fallocate(), which will get
> called by glibc when an application issues a fallocate() system call
> on s390. The s390 arch specific changes will be part of a separate
> patch (PATCH 2/5). It will be great if some s390 expert can verify the
> patch, since I have not been able to test it on s390 so far.

After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
which doesn't and causes extra effort.

> It was also noted that minor changes might be required to strace code
> to take care of "different arguments on s390" issue.

This is not limited to strace...

Besides that the s390 backend looks ok.


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