Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

Chris Wedgwood
2007-04-27T20:49:55Z

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
> having u32 arguments only?

Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.

> It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
> considered performance critical...

Right.

> 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.

I'm not that bothered about it. I would prefer it did use clean
64-bit arguments, but given it's a non-critical syscall I'm don't
think the aesthetics are worth impossing crud on s390 for.