[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:0.080 / U:7.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site