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