| To: | James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: using lseek() on large files |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:47:52 -0700 |
| Cc: | XFS mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304071419210.30028-100000@universe.chowhouse.com> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304071343430.30028-100000@universe.chowhouse.com> <20030408055256.A943836@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304071419210.30028-100000@universe.chowhouse.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:21:04PM -0600, James Rich wrote: > Is there a performance difference using lseek() and lseek64()? In theory the system call might take a couple of cycles more... I doubt you could measure the difference between them though. > If there is, does that difference exist on 64 bit platforms? No, for 64-bit platforms it won't make (this tiny theoretical) difference (the ABI isn't doubled up). --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | FWD: fsck in background?, Greg Freemyer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | xfsrepair: rebuilding directory inode 128, Christian Guggenberger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: using lseek() on large files, James Rich |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE - Missing macros for the FreeBSD build, Russell Cattelan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |