Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

[Amit K. Arora]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:21:46PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > Ok.
> > In this case we may have to consider following things:
> > 
> > 1) Obviously, for this glibc will have to call fallocate() syscall with
> > different arguments on s390, than other archs. I think this should be
> > doable and should not be an issue with glibc folks (right?).
> 
> glibc can cope with this easily, will just add
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/fallocate.c or something similar to override
> the generic Linux implementation.
> 
> > 2) we also need to see how strace behaves in this case. With little
> > knowledge that I have of strace, I don't think it should depend on
> > argument ordering of a system call on different archs (since it uses
> > ptrace internally and that should take care of it). But, it will be
> > nice if someone can confirm this.
> 
> strace would solve this with #ifdef mess, it already does that in many
> places so guess another few lines don't make it significantly worse.

I will work on the revised fallocate patchset and will post it soon.

Thanks!
--
Regards,
Amit Arora
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/