Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: posix_fadvise

# Re: posix_fadvise

Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com)
14 Apr 2000 14:35:25 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "ll_rw_blk BUG() in 2.3.99-Pre5"
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "detailed patch summaries - where?"
- In reply to: Jamie Lokier: "Re: posix_fadvise"

Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes:

> You gave the definition as "the application does not need the data in
> the near future". If it were ok to nuke the data, the definition would
> say "the application does not need the data".

THere is no problem because the OS will recover. I don't say it's an
optimal implementation but given that the name is used differently on
different OSes (at least the one without the POSIX_ prefix) people
will have to adjust themselves.

Of course I would prefer if the option in the Linux kernel could do
what POSIX says and simply add a new option for the current behaviour.
But nobody listens to me anyway so why bother.

    --
    ---------------.      drepper at gnu.org  ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
    Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
    Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "ll_rw_blk BUG() in 2.3.99-Pre5"
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "detailed patch summaries - where?"
- In reply to: Jamie Lokier: "Re: posix_fadvise"