On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 08:43:33PM -0400, Dan Maas wrote:
> (hrm, maybe I could hack up my own manual read-ahead/drop-behind with mmap()
> and memory locking...)
Just to argue portability for a moment (portability on the expected
results, that is, vs APIs).
Would this technique work across a variety of OSes?
Would the recent caching difficulties of the 2.4.* series have handled such
a technique in a reasonable fashion?
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different"); -- gcc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Jeffrey W. Baker
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Mike Castle
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 John Fremlin
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Marco Colombo
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pozsar Balazs
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Jason McMullan
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 John Fremlin
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pavel Machek
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Dan Maas
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Mike Castle
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Helge Hafting
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 mike_phillips

