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

[Alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:01:39 -0500
"Graham, Simon" <Simon.Graham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 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.

Linux man(2) documents system calls. Glibc provides POSIX interfaces for
the OS

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel