[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070330070016.GB8365@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:00:16 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:01:54PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 29 2007 17:21, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> >
> >We need to come up with the best possible layout of arguments for the
> >fallocate() system call. Various architectures have different
> >requirements for how the arguments should look like. Since the mail
> >chain has become huge, here is the summary of various inputs received
> >so far.
>
> >s390 prefers following layout:
> > int fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
> >For details on why and how "int, int, loff_t, loff_t" is a problem on
> >s390, please see Heiko's mail on 16th March. Here is the link:
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg133595.html
>
> Quoting that...
> |len -> r6 + second halve on stack
>
> Then, is not this a gcc glitch? (IMO, it should put all of "len" on the
> stack)
It _does_ put all of "len" on the stack. That is what I tried to explain
in the section that follows what you quoted.
-
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