Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753546AbYLLTNT (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750991AbYLLTNF (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:05 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:38080 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750847AbYLLTNC (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:07:28 +0000 From: Russell King To: Scott Lurndal Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Matthew Wilcox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add preadv and pwritev system calls. Message-ID: <20081212190728.GC5774@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Lurndal , Gerd Hoffmann , Matthew Wilcox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich Drepper References: <1229090440-32120-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20081212152929.GM26095@parisc-linux.org> <494287D4.2070909@redhat.com> <20081212155113.GO26095@parisc-linux.org> <49428AFD.5090009@redhat.com> <20081212182929.GA9631@pendragon.3leafnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081212182929.GA9631@pendragon.3leafnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2104 Lines: 53 On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:29:29AM -0800, Scott Lurndal wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 05:02:05PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On the other hand, NetBSD have approximately 0% market share. > > > We shouldn't let them lock us into making a bad decision. Is there > > > anyone other than NetBSD who has added these syscalls? > > > > Free- and OpenBSD have it too. For Solaris I've found a feature request > > only. Dunno about MacOS/Darwin. Other un*xes which are important these > > days? > > > > I'd *really* hate it to have the same system call with different > > argument ordering on different systems though. Especially when swapping > > two integer values, so gcc wouldn't error out on wrong usage. > > I would suggest that from the end-users perspective, the user-mode API > should be similar to pread/pwrite, e.g: > > int preadv(fd, iovec, iovec_size, offset) Yes, and that's easy for glibc to achieve. What's hard is that the user <-> kernel API firstly has a limited number of registers available to it for passing arguments without indirection from user space into kernel space. Secondly, the user <-> kernel argument register allocation can vary depending on the ABI version which user space or kernel space is built for. On ARM we have two ABIs, one where 64-bit arguments can be placed in any two consecutive registers, and one where 64-bit arguments must be placed in an even,odd register pair (not an odd,even pair.) That leads to the above being: fd r0 r0 iovec r1 r1 vecsz r2 r2 offset r3,r4 r4,r5 Notice the different register allocation for the 64-bit offset. This problem of register-aligned argument placement is not limited to just ARM, but several other Linux supported architectures. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/