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

>>Followup to: <>
>>By author: Anton Altaparmakov <>
>>In newsgroup:
>>>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...


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:0.075 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site