[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130911211722.GA9725@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:17:23 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading
Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> wrote:
> Towards the end of that thread Eric Wong asked why we didn't just
> extend splice. I immediately replied with some dumb dismissive
> answer. Once I sat down and looked at it, though, it does make a
> lot of sense. So good job, Eric. +10 Dummie points for me.
Thanks for revisiting that :>
> Some things to talk about:
> - I really don't care about the naming here. If you do, holler.
Exposing "DIRECT" to userspace now might confuse users into expecting
O_DIRECT behavior. I say this as an easily-confused user.
In the future, perhaps O_DIRECT behavior can become per-splice (instead
of just per-open) and can save SPLICE_F_DIRECT for that.
> - We might want different flags for file-to-file splicing and acceleration
> - We might want flags to require or forbid acceleration
> - We might want to provide all these flags to sendfile, too
Another syscall? I prefer not. Better to just maintain the sendfile
API as-is for compatibility reasons and nudge users towards splice.
> Thoughts? Objections?
I'll try to test/comment more in a week or two (not much time for
computing until then).
--
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