[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51954CBC.7070308@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:44 -0400
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
CC: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v0 1/4] vfs: add copy_range syscall and vfs entry point
On 05/15/2013 04:03 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:44:05PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
>> Why introduce a new syscall instead of extending sys_splice?
> Personally, I think it's ugly to have different operations use the same
> syscall just because their arguments match.
I agree with Zach - having a system call called "splice" do copy offloads is not
intuitive.
This is a very reasonable name for something that battled its way through
several standards bodies (for NFS and SCSI :)), so we should give it a
reasonable name
thanks!
Ric
>
> But that preference aside, sure, if the consensus is that we'd rather
> use the splice() entry point then I can duck tape the pieces together to
> make it work.
>
>> If the user doesn't need a out offset, then sendfile() should also be
>> able to transparently utilize COPY/CLONE_RANGE, too.
> Perhaps, yeah.
>
> - z
--
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