Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

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.

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