Re: [PATCH 2/7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86_64 and powerpc

2007-07-10 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:10:34PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:50:00 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- linux-2.6.22.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c +++ linux-2.6.22/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c @@ -879,3 +879,11 @@ asmlinkage long

Re: [PATCH 2/7][TAKE5] fallocate() on s390(x)

2007-06-26 Thread Heiko Carstens
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls.S === --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls.S 2007-06-11 16:16:01.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls.S 2007-06-11

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-27 Thread Heiko Carstens
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

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-27 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: 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

Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

2007-03-30 Thread Heiko Carstens
and Russell have suggested another option of breaking each loff_t into two u32s. This will result in 6 arguments in total. Following think that this is a good alternative: Matthew Wilcox, Russell King, Heiko Carstens Following do not like this idea: Chris Wedgwood It's a bit weird

Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

2007-03-30 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:17AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:10:10AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Platform: s390 -- s390 prefers following layout: int fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode) For details on why and

Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

2007-03-30 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:44:49PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: On Fri, 30 March 2007 19:15:58 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: It does mean extra unnecessary work for 64-bit platforms, though... Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko correctly, the alternative would

Re: [RFC][PATCH] sys_fallocate() system call

2007-03-19 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:54:04PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:21:03PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:01:01PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) Currently we

Re: [RFC][PATCH] sys_fallocate() system call

2007-03-17 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 05:07:06AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:59:05PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: ... but wouldn't work on 32-bit powerpc. :( We would end up with a pad argument between fd and offset, giving 7 arguments in all (counting the loff_t's as 2), but