xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:45:07 +0530
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: <17978.47502.786970.196554@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070330071417.GI355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070417125514.GA7574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070418130600.GW5967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070420135146.GA21352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070420145918.GY355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070424121632.GA10136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070426175056.GA25321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070426180332.GA7209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070503212955.b1b6443c.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17978.47502.786970.196554@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: suparna@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 02:41:50PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:33:32 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" 
> > <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > This patch implements the fallocate() system call and adds support for
> > > i386, x86_64 and powerpc.
> > > 
> > > ...
> > >
> > > +asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t 
> > > len)
> > 
> > Please add a comment over this function which specifies its behaviour. 
> > Really it should be enough material from which a full manpage can be
> > written.
> 
> This looks like it will have the same problem on s390 as
> sys_sync_file_range.  Maybe the prototype should be:
> 
> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)

Yes, but the trouble is that there was a contrary viewpoint preferring that fd
first be maintained as a convention like other syscalls (see the following
posts)

http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117585330016809&w=2 (Andreas)
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117690157917378&w=2  (Andreas)

http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117578821827323&w=2 (Randy)

So we are kind of deadlocked, aren't we ?

The debates on the proposed solution for s390

http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117760995610639&w=2  
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117708124913098&w=2 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117767607229807&w=2

Are there any better ideas ?

Regards
Suparna

> 
> Paul.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@xxxxxxxxxx)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India


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