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 20:50:44 +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: <20070509101507.GA26056@xxxxxxxxxx>
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> <20070509101507.GA26056@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Suparna Bhattacharya writes:

> > 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)

Of course the interface used by an application program would have the
fd first.  Glibc can do the translation.

Paul.


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