Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:08:02 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: fadvise syscall? |
| |
Jan Hudec wrote:
>>Followup to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020318000057.051d30e0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> >>By author: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk> >>In newsgroup: linux.dev.fs.devel >> >>>Ok, so basically we want both fadvise() and open(2) semantics, with the >>>open(2) being a superset of the fadvise() capabilities (some things no >>>longer make sense to be specified once the file is open). They can of >>>course both be calling the same common helpers inside the kernel... >>> >>If they're open() flags, they should probably be controlled with >>fcntl() rather than with a new system call. >> > >Then posix_fadvise interface can be implemented in libc using fcntl. > Indeed it can be... but it less flexible that way, unless you want to add another level of indirection.
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.
So, different class of fd flags deserves a different syscall, IMO...
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/
| |