lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: fadvise syscall?
At 11:24 24/03/02, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
> > >> 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,

Anton


--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.087 / U:1.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site