Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:29:17 -0500 | | From | Mark Mielke <> | | Subject | Re: fadvise syscall? |
| |
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:08:02AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jan Hudec wrote: > >Then posix_fadvise interface can be implemented in libc using fcntl. > It is far better for future-proofing the interface IMO if fadvise is > implementing directly. Hints are less important than open O_xxx flags > or F_xxx flags, because an implementation can safely ignore 100% of the > fadvise hints, if it so chooses. One cannot say the same thing for > open/fcntl flags.
There is nothing to say that fadvise(...) shouldn't call fcntl(F_ADVISE, ...).
If it fits in with open(), then it might just fit in with F_GETFL / F_SETFL as well.
I prefer generalization, especially for non-critical functions that should not be called 1,000,000 a second, such as fadvise().
mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- 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/
|  |