Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:36:34 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101091212520.2331-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> So i do believe that the networking >> code is properly designed in this respect, and this concept goes to the >> highest level of the networking code.
> Absolutely. This is why I have no conceptual problems with the networking > layer changes, and why I am in violent disagreement with people who think > the networking layer should have used the (much inferior, in my opinion) > kiobuf/kiovec approach.
At least I (who has started this threads) haven't said htey should use iobufs internally. I said: use iovecs in the interface, because this interface is a little more general and allows to integrate into other parts (namely Ben's aio work nicely).
Also the tuple argument you gave earlier isn't right in this specific case:
when doing sendfile from pagecache to an fs, you have a bunch of pages, an offset in the first and a length that makes the data end before last page's end.
> For people who worry about code re-use and argue for kiobuf/kiovec on > those grounds, I can only say that the code re-use should go the other > way. It should be "the bad code should re-use code from the good code". It > should NOT be "the new code should re-use code from the old code".
It's not relly about reusing, but about compatiblity with other interfaces...
Christoph
-- Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. - 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/
|  |