From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 09 May 2007 04:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l49B8rfB001993 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 04:08:55 -0700 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l49B8g6b005958 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 07:08:42 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l49B8g8B178256 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 05:08:42 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l49B8fSu020108 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 05:08:42 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:40:11 +0530 From: Suparna Bhattacharya Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc Message-ID: <20070509111011.GA21619@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com References: <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> <20070426180332.GA7209@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070503212955.b1b6443c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <17978.47502.786970.196554@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070509101507.GA26056@in.ibm.com> <17985.42884.971318.859402@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17985.42884.971318.859402@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Andrew Morton , "Amit K. Arora" , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cmm@us.ibm.com On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:50:44PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > 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 that fd > > first be maintained as a convention like other syscalls (see the following > > posts) > > Of course the interface used by an application program would have the > fd first. Glibc can do the translation. I think that was understood. Regards Suparna > > Paul. -- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India