Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:12:24 +0000 | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Subject | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:30:39PM -0500, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > this is why i ment that *right now* kiobufs are not suited for networking, > > at least the way we do it. Maybe if kiobufs had the same kind of internal > > structure as sk_frag (ie. array of (page,offset,size) triples, not array > > of pages), that would work out better. > > That I can agree with, and it would make my life easier since I really > only care about the completion of an entire io, not the individual > fragments of it.
Right, but this is why the kiobuf IO functions are supposed to accept kiovecs (ie. counted vectors of kiobuf *s, just like ll_rw_block receives buffer_heads).
The kiobuf is supposed to be a unit of memory, not of IO. You can map several different kiobufs from different sources and send them all together to brw_kiovec() as a single IO.
Cheers, Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |