Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:07:13 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: fadvise syscall? |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote:
>posix_fadvise() looks to be a fine interface: >
>We'll need to cheat a bit on the offset/len thing for NORMAL and >SEQUENTIAL - just apply it to the whole file - we don't want to have to >attach an arbitrary number of silly range objects to each file for this. >(We already cheat a bit this way with msync). > yep
>Given this, I don't see a persuasive need to implement a non-standard >interface. It takes an off_t, so posix_fadvise64() is also needed. > agreed WRT non-standard.
Are we required to have both foo and foo64 variants? If I had my druthers, I would just do the foo64 version.
> >A 2.4 implementation could be done any time. If anyone decides to >do this, please let me know... >
count me down as interested after my current project... If someone else does it, more power to them...
Jeff
- 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/
| |