xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

To: suparna@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 21:37:22 +1000
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070509111011.GA21619@in.ibm.com>
References: <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> <20070426180332.GA7209@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070503212955.b1b6443c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <17978.47502.786970.196554@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070509101507.GA26056@in.ibm.com> <17985.42884.971318.859402@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070509111011.GA21619@in.ibm.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Suparna Bhattacharya writes:

> > Of course the interface used by an application program would have the
> > fd first.  Glibc can do the translation.
> 
> I think that was understood.

OK, then what does it matter what the glibc/kernel interface is, as
long as it works?

It's only a minor point; the order of arguments can vary between
architectures if necessary, but it's nicer if they don't have to.
32-bit powerpc will need to have the two int arguments adjacent in
order to avoid using more than 6 argument registers at the user/kernel
boundary, and s390 will need to avoid having a 64-bit argument last
(if I understand it correctly).

Paul.


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