From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:52:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:52:20 -0500 Received: from yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.67]:34713 "EHLO yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:52:05 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020324124410.02927620@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:52:53 +0000 To: Pavel Machek From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: fadvise syscall? Cc: Stevie O , Pavel Machek , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020324112418.GA15934@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/