Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:44:53 -0500 | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading |
| |
On 09/11/2013 04:17:23 PM, Eric Wong wrote: > Zach Brown <zab@redhat.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).
Just a vague note that I've wanted to use splice implementing cp and patch and cat and so on in toybox, but couldn't because it needs a pipe.
So I'm quite interested in moves to lift this restriction...
Rob
| |