Re: fadvise syscall?

[Andrew Morton]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> ...
> >Given this, I don't see a persuasive need to implement a non-standard
> >interface.  It takes an off_t, so posix_fadvise64() is also needed.
> >
> agreed WRT non-standard.
> 
> Are we required to have both foo and foo64 variants?  If I had my
> druthers, I would just do the foo64 version.

That would be good.  I can't see a reason why

	#define posix_fadvise posix_fadvise64

would not suffice.  That doesn't mean there isn't one :)

-