Phillip Susi wrote:
[]
> You seem to have missed the point of this thread. Denis Vlasenko's
> message that you replied to simply pointed out that they are
> semantically equivalent, so O_DIRECT can be dropped provided that O_SYNC
> + madvise could be fixed to perform as well. Several people including
> Linus seem to like this idea and think it is quite possible.
By the way, IF O_SYNC+madvise could be "fixed", can't O_DIRECT be implemented
internally using them?
I mean, during open(O_DIRECT), do open(O_SYNC) instead and call madvise()
appropriately....
/mjt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
