Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

[Amit K. Arora]

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:37:22PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Suparna Bhattacharya writes:
> 
> > > 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
-
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/