On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

quoted text
> 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.

I will work on the revised fallocate patchset and will post it soon.
Thanks!

--

Regards,

Amit Arora

-

unsubscribe notice
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/