Re: fadvise syscall?

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Sun Mar 24 2002 - 06:24:18 EST

Next message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: Updated -aa VM patches"
Previous message: Erik Tews: "Re: fork() DoS?"
In reply to: Stevie O: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Next in thread: Anton Altaparmakov: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Reply: Anton Altaparmakov: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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.
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/

Next message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: Updated -aa VM patches"
Previous message: Erik Tews: "Re: fork() DoS?"
In reply to: Stevie O: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Next in thread: Anton Altaparmakov: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Reply: Anton Altaparmakov: "Re: fadvise syscall?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 22:00:07 EST