Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:59:18 -0400 | From | Jakub Jelinek <> | Subject | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call |
| |
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/
| |