Fix the fallocate system call on powerpc to match its unistd.h.
This implies none of these system calls are currently working with the
unistd.h sys call values:
fallocate
signalfd
timerfd
eventfd
sync_file_range2
Signed-off-by: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
fallocate() is a new system call being proposed here which will allow
applications to preallocate space to any file(s) in a file system.
Each file system implementation that wants to use this feature will need
to support an inode operation called ->fallocate().
Applications can use this feature to avoid fragmentation to certain
level and thus get faster access speed. With preallocation, applications
also get a guarantee of space for particular file(s) - even if later the
the system becomes full.
Currently, glibc provides an interface called posix_fallocate() which
can be used for similar cause. Though this has the advantage of working
on all file systems, but it is quite slow (since it writes zeroes to
each block that has to be preallocated). Without a doubt, file systems
can do this more efficiently within the kernel, by implementing
the proposed fallocate() system call. It is expected that
posix_fallocate() will be modified to call this new system call first
and incase the kernel/filesystem does not implement it, it should fall
back to the current implementation of writing zeroes to the new blocks.
ToDos:
1. Implementation on other architectures (other than i386, x86_64,
and ppc). Patches for s390(x) and ia64 are already available from
previous posts, but it was decided that they should be added later
once fallocate is in the mainline. Hence not including those patches
in this take.
2. Changes to glibc,
a) to support fallocate() system call
b) to make posix_fallocate() and posix_fallocate64() call fallocate()
Signed-off-by: Amit Arora <aarora@in.ibm.com>
Not all the world is an i386. Many architectures need 64-bit arguments to be
aligned in suitable pairs of registers, and the original
sys_sync_file_range(int, loff_t, loff_t, int) was therefore wasting an
argument register for padding after the first integer. Since we don't
normally have more than 6 arguments for system calls, that left no room for
the final argument on some architectures.
Fix this by introducing sys_sync_file_range2(int, int, loff_t, loff_t) which
all fits nicely. In fact, ARM already had that, but called it
sys_arm_sync_file_range. Move it to fs/sync.c and rename it, then implement
the needed compatibility routine. And stop the missing syscall check from
bitching about the absence of sys_sync_file_range() if we've implemented
sys_sync_file_range2() instead.
Tested on PPC32 and with 32-bit and 64-bit userspace on PPC64.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Trivial change to pass vmsplice arguments through the compat layer on
pp64.
Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
All the infrastructure is already in place for this, so we only need
to allocate a syscall number and hook it up.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Avoid duplication of the syscall table for the cell platform. Based on an
idea from David Woodhouse.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Patrick Mansfield