[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100104073328.GA3422@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 02:33:28 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Quentin Barnes <qbarnes+nfs@...oo-inc.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] readahead: introduce O_RANDOM for
POSIX_FADV_RANDOM
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:17:19PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@
> > #define O_NDELAY O_NONBLOCK
> > #endif
> >
> > +#ifndef O_RANDOM
> > +#define O_RANDOM 010000000 /* random access pattern hint */
> > +#endif
>
> This value conflicts with O_CLOEXEC on alpha and parisc and O_NOATIME on
> sparc.
Also when I tried to use this value for O_RSYNC and tested it I could
not actually see it getting propagated by the open code.
Eitherway I don't think an O_ value is a good idea for a simple access
pattern hint.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists