From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:10:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20070321120425.GA27273@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329115126.GB7374@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329101010.7a2b8783.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070330071417.GI355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070417125514.GA7574@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, suparna@in.ibm.com, cmm@us.ibm.com To: "Amit K. Arora" Return-path: Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]:16376 "EHLO mtagate3.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755721AbXD0MKn (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:10:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the > interface for fallocate() system call: > > asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) > > It seems that only s390 architecture has a problem with such a layout of > arguments in fallocate(). Thus for s390, we plan to have a wrapper > (say, sys_s390_fallocate()) for the sys_fallocate(), which will get > called by glibc when an application issues a fallocate() system call > on s390. The s390 arch specific changes will be part of a separate > patch (PATCH 2/5). It will be great if some s390 expert can verify the > patch, since I have not been able to test it on s390 so far. After long discussions where at least two possible implementations were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one which doesn't and causes extra effort. > It was also noted that minor changes might be required to strace code > to take care of "different arguments on s390" issue. This is not limited to strace... Besides that the s390 backend looks ok.