[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51273FE3.8000306@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:52:35 +0100
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>,
"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.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?
On 02/22/2013 10:47 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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
This seems to be suspiciously close to a clear consensus on how to move forward
after many years of spinning our wheels. Anyone want to promote an actual patch
before we change our collective minds?
Ric
--
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