From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (mtagate1.de.ibm.com [195.212.29.150]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l3RHl5fB018972 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:06 -0700 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3RHl15a130500 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:47:01 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3RHl1944079788 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:47:01 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3RHl02S018720 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:47:01 +0200 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:46:13 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call Message-ID: <20070427174613.GA8228@osiris.ibm.com> References: <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> <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070427144327.GC22949@lazybastard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20070427144327.GC22949@lazybastard.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: "Amit K. Arora" , 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 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 effort. > > I believe the long discussion also showed that every possible > implementation has drawbacks. To me this one appeared to be the best of > many bad choices. If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with having u32 arguments only? It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be considered performance critical... > Is this implementation worse than we thought? It adds userspace overhead for one architecture. Every *trace and *libc needs special handling on s390 for this syscall. I would prefer to avoid this.