[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fadvise syscall?
At 11:24 24/03/02, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >> I disagree, and here's the main reasons:
> > >>
> > >> * fadvise(2) usefulness extends past open(2). It may be useful to call
> > >> it at various points during runtime.
> > >
> > >open(/proc/self/fd/0, O_NEW_FLAGS)?
> >
> > So to use fadvise(), the system must have /proc mounted?
>I think it is way more feasible than adding new syscall.

Sorry but it is silly. (-; What's wrong with open("filename", O_FLAGS);
followed by fcntl(); if you want to modify them after opening. That is a
lot cleaner than going via proc in such a way...

posix_fadvise() can then be implemented in userspace and that can go via
fcntl(). That way we have the best of both worlds.

Best regards,


"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW:
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW:

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:0.070 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site