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
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:10:10AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Platform: s390
--
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
Even ARM prefers above kind of layout. For details please see the
definition of sys_arm_sync_file_range().
This is a clean-looking option. Can s390 be changed to support seven-arg
syscalls?
Option of loff_t = high u32 + low u32
--
Matthew and
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:20:50AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
While it may be to late for the purposes of your OLS paper, one thing
that doesn't seem to be getting much attention is the performance of a
file system while doing many meta-data operations or throughput testing
during heavy
Jakub Jelinek writes:
Wouldn't
int fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)
work on both s390 and ppc/arm? glibc will certainly wrap it and
reorder the arguments as needed, so there is no need to keep fd first.
That looks fine to me.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, 30 March 2007 19:15:58 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Heiko Carstens writes:
If possible I'd prefer the six-32-bit-args approach.
It does mean extra unnecessary work for 64-bit platforms, though...
Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko
correctly, the
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:44:49PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Fri, 30 March 2007 19:15:58 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
It does mean extra unnecessary work for 64-bit platforms, though...
Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko
correctly, the alternative would
On Mar 30, 2007 10:43 +0200, Johann Lombardi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:20:50AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
While it may be to late for the purposes of your OLS paper, one thing
that doesn't seem to be getting much attention is the performance of a
file system while doing many
