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
Andrew Morton writes:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:33:32 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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)
Jörn Engel writes:
Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko
correctly, the alternative would slow s390 down for every syscall,
including more performance-critical ones.
The alternative that Jakub suggested wouldn't slow s390 down.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this
Heiko Carstens writes:
If possible I'd prefer the six-32-bit-args approach.
It does mean extra unnecessary work for 64-bit platforms, though...
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Jakub Jelinek writes:
Wouldn't
int fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)
work on both s390 and ppc/arm? glibc will certainly wrap it and
reorder the arguments as needed, so there is no need to keep fd first.
That looks fine to me.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
