[PATCH] fadvise(2) system call

[Peter Wemm]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Ed Schouten <ed at 80386.nl> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> * John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>, 20111101 15:01:
>> Hmmm, there is an fadvise(2) manpage.  I had presumed from that it was
>> a public interface.
>
> That's interesting. What kind of distro/version are you using? I'm using
> libc6-2.13-20ubuntu5 from Ubuntu 11.10 (amd64).

Don't forget that the Linux kernel syscalls are not automatically
published to userland like ours are.  glibc is (usually) very
deliberate about what symbols it publishes, what macros it defines in
its #include mess, and so on.  Just because a syscall is called
"fadvise" in the kernel doesn't mean the userland part is fadvise as
well, if it even exists.  Heck, even glibc might not assume the
syscall exists in the kernel. eg: mrename() and so on.

eg: lseek vs llseek and all the syscall64 variants.

Bottom line(s):
1) Is this a standardized symbol?
2) Is it used in other OS's?
3) Do the implementations vary?

If it exists in a widely used linux, it counts a lot as a "defacto"
standardized defintion.  Also, does autoconf/automake have stubs to
check for it? and so on.

-- 
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete
themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell