Hi, > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:49:03PM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > Hi! > > > So I'd just remove that test. It's meaningless for pseudo fses. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to actually return EINVAL instead of > > ignoring the request if readahead() is not implemented? > It would change the return value for a whole bunch of stuff. I'm not > sure that wouldn't cause regressions but is in any case a question for > the readahead maintainers. For now I'd just remove that test for pidfds > imho. @Matthew, any input on Cyril's question please? Kind regards, Petr
