Re: fadvise syscall?

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@zip.com.au)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 03:17:21 EST


Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> ...
> >Given this, I don't see a persuasive need to implement a non-standard
> >interface. It takes an off_t, so posix_fadvise64() is also needed.
> >
> agreed WRT non-standard.
>
> Are we required to have both foo and foo64 variants? If I had my
> druthers, I would just do the foo64 version.

That would be good. I can't see a reason why

        #define posix_fadvise posix_fadvise64

would not suffice. That doesn't mean there isn't one :)

-
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:14 EST