[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080921.190715.144340989.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: johnpol@....mipt.ru
Cc: johaahn@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sendfile() and UDP socket
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:08:34 +0400
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:44:50PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> > > > Applications which work over datagram protocols must perform their own
> > > > segmentation. It is not like doing a send over a stream protocol like
> > > > TCP, where you can use whatever length you want for send calls and
> > > > segmentation is done for the application.
> > >
> > > But isn't the whole idea of the sendfile() is to send a file no matter
> > > what underlying media is?
> >
> > It's a way to fabricate a send() directly from the page cache.
>
> And to send exactly required number of bytes (or size of the cache)?
> To send a single page (combined to several other pages) we have simple
> ->sendpage() callback, which should not return error when it is asked to
> send a data and it can do it by actually submitting two packets without
> special tcp-like processing of the segments.
You're basically throwing away the difference between datagram and stream
socket semantics.
I don't see what else I can explain if you cannot see that this is
significant.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists