Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: Amit K. Arora <hidden>
Date: 2007-05-09 12:05:58
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
From: Amit K. Arora <hidden>
Date: 2007-05-09 12:05:58
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:37:22PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Suparna Bhattacharya writes:quoted
quoted
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).
You are right to say that. But, it may not be _that_ a minor point, especially for the arch which is getting affected. It has other implications like what Heiko noticed in his post below: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/27/377 - implications like modifying glibc and *trace utilities for a particular arch. -- Regards, Amit Arora