linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 9 May 2007 21:37:22 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	suparna@...ibm.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

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).

Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html