[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51273EBB.1010305@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:47:39 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
CC: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chris L. Mason" <clmason@...ionio.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <aviro@...hat.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@....net>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
Subject: Re: New copyfile system call - discuss before LSF?
Il 21/02/2013 23:24, Zach Brown ha scritto:
> You could make it work with some locking and out_fd seeking to set the
> write offset before calling sendfile64()+flags, but ugh.
>
> ssize_t sendfile(int out_fd, int in_fd, off_t in_offset, off_t
> out_offset, size_t count, int flags);
>
> That seems closer.
>
> We might also want to pre-emptively offer iovs instead of offsets,
> because that's the very first thing that's going to be requested after
> people prototype having to iterate calling sendfile() for each
> contiguous copy region.
Indeed, I was about to propose that exactly. So that would be
psendfilev. I don't think psendfile is useful, and can be easily
provided at the libc level.
Paolo
--
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