From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [patch 143/166] preadv/pwritev: Add preadv and pwritev system calls. Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:57:22 +0200 Message-ID: <49D66A22.7090909@redhat.com> References: <200904022359.n32NxNYu022834@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <49D5CA58.20908@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , arnd@arndb.de, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , ralf@linux-mips.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Al Viro List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > - I changed the order to "low first". Why? Because when we have it like > this, the 64-bit system calls now don't use the "pos_high" argument at > all, and it makes more sense for the native system call to simply match > the user-mode prototype. Good idea. > problems if we ever do 128-bit loff_t). So the user call wrapper isn't > really any more complicated - the HALF_BITS thing may look more > complicated than just doing a hard-coded '16' there twice, but if you > understand what it's doing it's actually more logical. The whole point of the HALF_BITS thing is just to kill the gcc "hey your shift is greater than bitsize of $type" warning, right? > I think. > > Comments? I really like it. Except for the low/high ordering it is basically identical to the patch I've mailed. While hashing out all the issues I've learned alot about arch specific ABIs. I can't see possible trouble spots and don't expect vetos from arch maintainers. cheers, Gerd