| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:30:33 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...e.de, mucci@...utk.edu, eranian@....hp.com, wcohen@...hat.com, robert.richter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org Subject: Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news Nick Piggin writes: > What I really mean is a readv-like syscall, but one that also > vectorises the file offset. Maybe this is useful enough as a generic > syscall that also helps Paul's example... I've sometimes thought it would be useful to have a "transaction" system call that is like a write + read combined into one: int transaction(int fd, char *req, size_t req_nb, char *reply, size_t reply_nb); as a way to provide a general request/reply interface for special files. > Of course, I guess this all depends on whether the atomicity is an > important requirement. If not, you can obviously just do it with > multiple read syscalls... That would take N system calls instead of one, which could have a performance impact if you need to read the counters frequently (which I believe you do in some performance monitoring situations). Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists