From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:20:42 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [RFC] sys_punchhole() Message-ID: <20051116122042.GE24970@opteron.random> References: <1131664994.25354.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051110153254.5dde61c5.akpm@osdl.org> <200511110925.48259.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> <200511160608.18413.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511160608.18413.rob@landley.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rob Landley Cc: Ingo Oeser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Badari Pulavarty , hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 06:08:18AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > You know, if you wanted to get really really gross and disgusting about this, > you could always have write(fd, NULL, count) punch a hole in the file. (Then > have libc's write() check for NULL and error out, and have a seprate punch() > call that does the write with the null...) > > Just one way to avoid introducing a new syscall... That would add an unnecessary branch in write(3). I don't think it worth it, we'd rather go full speed and use the syscall table for it. Plus it sounds safer in general to keep it separate (just in case someone isn't using glibc but some other dietlibc or similar ;) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org