On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
