[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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).

>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...


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:0.107 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site