From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 09 May 2007 05:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l49C5wfB021602 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 05:05:59 -0700 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l49C5vv6004481 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 08:05:57 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l49C5vn6531388 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 08:05:57 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l49C5vNd025124 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 08:05:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:35:59 +0530 From: "Amit K. Arora" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc Message-ID: <20070509120559.GA19430@amitarora.in.ibm.com> References: <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> <20070509111011.GA21619@in.ibm.com> <17985.45682.284634.969153@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17985.45682.284634.969153@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Paul Mackerras Cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , 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 09:37:22PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Suparna Bhattacharya writes: > > > > Of course the interface used by an application program would have the > > > fd first. Glibc can do the translation. > > > > I think that was understood. > > OK, then what does it matter what the glibc/kernel interface is, as > long as it works? > > It's only a minor point; the order of arguments can vary between > architectures if necessary, but it's nicer if they don't have to. > 32-bit powerpc will need to have the two int arguments adjacent in > order to avoid using more than 6 argument registers at the user/kernel > boundary, and s390 will need to avoid having a 64-bit argument last > (if I understand it correctly). You are right to say that. But, it may not be _that_ a minor point, especially for the arch which is getting affected. It has other implications like what Heiko noticed in his post below: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/27/377 - implications like modifying glibc and *trace utilities for a particular arch. -- Regards, Amit Arora