Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

xfs

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<20070330071417.GI355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070417125514.GA7574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070418130600.GW5967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070420135146.GA21352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070420145918.GY355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070424121632.GA10136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070426175056.GA25321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070427121003.GA7808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070427144327.GC22949@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070427174613.GA8228@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, (continued) Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 3/5] ext4: Extent overlap bugfix, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 5/5] ext4: write support for preallocated blocks/extents, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 2/5] fallocate() on s390, Amit K. Arora [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4, Amit K. Arora Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Heiko Carstens Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, JÃrn Engel Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Heiko Carstens Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Chris Wedgwood <= Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, David Chinner [PATCH] ia64 fallocate syscall, David Chinner [PATCH] XFS ->fallocate() support, David Chinner [PATCH] Add preallocation beyond EOF to fallocate, David Chinner Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Chris Wedgwood Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, David Chinner Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Chris Wedgwood

Previous by Date:	Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Heiko Carstens
Next by Date:	XFS on x86_64 Linux Question, Justin Piszcz
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, Heiko Carstens
Next by Thread:	Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call, David Chinner
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]