Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:12:04 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: fadvise syscall? |
| |
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.
Agreed, this is better than my proposal. Pavel -- 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 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/
| |