From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757229AbXD0Uut (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:50:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757234AbXD0Uus (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:50:48 -0400 Received: from smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.212]:47103 "HELO smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757222AbXD0Utr (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:49:47 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: y9u4GFAVM1lSnko0_de631CasXG6lBCufWGg6FUaKWyV7RGcY3HE1AuQnrNRKR17G1sFFB4t3g-- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:42:07 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Heiko Carstens Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , "Amit K. Arora" , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, suparna@in.ibm.com, cmm@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call Message-ID: <20070427204207.GA29551@tuatara.stupidest.org> References: <20070330071417.GI355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070417125514.GA7574@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070427144327.GC22949@lazybastard.org> <20070427174613.GA8228@osiris.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070427174613.GA8228@osiris.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with > having u32 arguments only? Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me. > It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be > considered performance critical... Right. > It adds userspace overhead for one architecture. Every *trace and > *libc needs special handling on s390 for this syscall. I would > prefer to avoid this. I'm not that bothered about it. I would prefer it did use clean 64-bit arguments, but given it's a non-critical syscall I'm don't think the aesthetics are worth impossing crud on s390 for.