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 like. Since the mail > >chain has become huge, here is the summary of various inputs received > >so far. > > >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 mail on 16th March. Here is the link: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg133595.html > > Quoting that... > |len -> r6 + second halve on stack > > Then, is not this a gcc glitch? (IMO, it should put all of "len" on the > stack) It _does_ put all of "len" on the stack. That is what I tried to explain in the section that follows what you quoted. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
