matthew green wrote:
> i dunno. i recon that netbsd's madvise() should fail if it doesn't work..
> if the emulations rely on it's "success" (as you say), then they should
> be changed to ignore what the *real* madvise() does?
> 
> comments?

makes sense. My guess is that there is no real emulation
for madvise() right now. It uses the native madvise().
Adding a little wrapper that calls the native madvise()
and ignores the result would probably be the right thing
to do. This is not time critical so we should do it.

  Guenther