[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy?
In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101171454340.29536-100000@baphomet.bogo.bogus>,
Ben Mansell <> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> And no, I don't actually hink that sendfile() is all that hot. It was
>> _very_ easy to implement, and can be considered a 5-minute hack to give
>> a feature that fit very well in the MM architecture, and that the Apache
>> folks had already been using on other architectures.
>The current sendfile() has the limitation that it can't read data from
>a socket. Would it be another 5-minute hack to remove this limitation, so
>you could sendfile between sockets? Now _that_ would be sexy :)

I don't think that would be all that sexy at all.

You have to realize, that sendfile() is meant as an optimization, by
being able to re-use the same buffers that act as the in-kernel page
cache as buffers for sending data. So you avoid one copy.

However, for socket->socket, we would not have such an advantage. A
socket->socket sendfile() would not avoid any copies the way the
networking is done today. That _may_ change, of course. But it might
not. And I'd rather tell people using sendfile() that you get EINVAL if
it isn't able to optimize the transfer..

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean