[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070321213501.GA1208@tuatara.stupidest.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:35:02 -0700
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
To: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, suparna@...ibm.com,
cmm@...ibm.com, alex@...sterfs.com, suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sys_fallocate() system call
I hate to comment at this late stage, especially on something that I
think is really a great idea (I did similar more complex, sys_blkalloc
with even more arguments time ago --- I'm glad given how complex this
thread has become I didn't post them now).
In the past there wasn't that much incentive to get this functionality
exposed because of various other issues (mmap + page dirty didn't
flush reliably) which are close to being resolve, so I think the
timing of this is really great....
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:34:25PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> As suggested by you and Russel, I have made this change to the
> patch. Here is how it looks like now. Please let me know if anyone
> has concerns about passing arguments this way (breaking each
> "loff_t" into two "u32"s).
I really dislike breaking 64-bit args up unless it's necessary. I
guess it doesn't really hurt, but it feels needlessly ugly.
> + .long sys_fallocate /* 320 */
> +/*
> + * fallocate() modes
> + */
> +#define FA_ALLOCATE 0x1
> +#define FA_DEALLOCATE 0x2
> +
given there are the only TWO modes right now, why not leave the
arguments as 64-bit sane and simply have two syscalls, one for each?
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists