Re: fadvise syscall?

Pavel Machek (
Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:24:18 +0100


> >> 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.

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at