[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49748C1B.8090205@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:20:11 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Add preadv & pwritev system calls.
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> If they are in the kernel there is no reason not to export them from
> glibc.
Great.
> But I have a general comment about all kinds of read syscalls.
> If think they have been misdesigned from day one and if we are going to
> add new ones we might want to fix them.
>
> The problem is that they don't allow for zero-copy operations in enough
> cases. The kernel is not free to store the data wherever it wants even
> if the userlevel code is fine with that.
[ ... more text snipped ... ]
I do see the point in adding a interface like this ...
> ssize_t readz (int fd, void *buf, size_t len, void **res)
... to help the kernel do zero-copy I/O.
I think system calls for vector I/O are *not* the right place for that
though. Usually applications use vectored I/O because they *do* care
about the place the data is stored, because vectored I/O allows them to
avoid copying data within the application.
cheers,
Gerd
--
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