Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:17:12 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: File copy system call proposal |
| |
Hi!
> No, I think he means just the opposite - that having a "copy(2)" syscall > would greatly _help_ SMB in that the copy could be done entirely at the > server side, rather than having to pull _all_ of the data to the client > and then sending it back again. > > When I was working on another network storage system (formerly called > Lustre, don't know what it is called now) we had a "copy" primitive in > the VFS interface, and there were lots of useful things you could do > with it. > > Consider the _very_ common case (that nobody has mentioned yet) where you > are editing a large file. When you write to the file, the editor copies > the file to a backup, then immediately truncates the original file and > writes the new data there. What would be _far_ preferrable is to > just
Are you sure? I think editor just _moves_ original to backup. Pavel
-- "I do not steal MS software. It is not worth it." -- Pavel Kankovsky - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |