[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fadvise syscall?

> >> >> 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.

Agreed, this is better than my proposal.
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.
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:0.071 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site