linux-kernel - Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

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]

Message-ID: <20070409163436.GA24012@lazybastard.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:34:37 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	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, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

On Mon, 9 April 2007 23:01:42 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Jörn Engel writes:
> 
> > Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()?  If I understand Heiko
> > correctly, the alternative would slow s390 down for every syscall,
> > including more performance-critical ones.
> 
> The alternative that Jakub suggested wouldn't slow s390 down.

True.  And it appears to be one of the least offensive options we have.

Jörn

-- 
My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to
master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes
evolving in time are relatively poorly developed.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/