Re: fadvise syscall?

[Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:08:02AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> >Then posix_fadvise interface can be implemented in libc using fcntl.
> It is far better for future-proofing the interface IMO if fadvise is 
> implementing directly.  Hints are less important than open O_xxx flags 
> or F_xxx flags, because an implementation can safely ignore 100% of the 
> fadvise hints, if it so chooses.  One cannot say the same thing for 
> open/fcntl flags.

There is nothing to say that fadvise(...) shouldn't call fcntl(F_ADVISE, ...).

If it fits in with open(), then it might just fit in with F_GETFL /
F_SETFL as well.

I prefer generalization, especially for non-critical functions that should
not be called 1,000,000 a second, such as fadvise().

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/