[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][TOOLS] Reducing impact of domain save/restore/dump on Dom0

  • To: "Iustin Pop" <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Graham, Simon" <Simon.Graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:01:39 -0500
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:21:41 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcdO/11deiDOLSP3SseE/iSHoXmtpQAb3/bQ
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][TOOLS] Reducing impact of domain save/restore/dump on Dom0

> Question - why fadvise64 and not posix_fadvise? posix_fadvise complies
> to some posix standard, according to the man page, whereas the
> fadvise64
> seems to be some glibc internal definition.

It seemed to me (and I am prepared to be wrong) that posix_fadvise64 is
a Linux only thing and the real official name is fadvise64 (although man
fadvise64 on Linux claims that it's either fadvise64_64 or
sys_fadvise64). Given that Solaris doesn't have fadvise, I'll make this
conditional on being built on linux and use posix_fadvise64 directly.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.