[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: File copy system call proposal

> 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.

"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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.139 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site