[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: fadvise syscall?
    Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > ...
    > >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.

    That would be good. I can't see a reason why

    #define posix_fadvise posix_fadvise64

    would not suffice. That doesn't mean there isn't one :)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.020 / U:74.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site