[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: sendfile(2) behaviour has changed ?
"David S. Miller" <> writes:

> From: Matti Aarnio <>
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:10:46 +0300
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:49:08AM +0200, Zilvinas Valinskas wrote:
> > Is this expected behaviour ? that sendfile(2) on 2.5.4x linux kernel requires
> > socket as an output fd paramter ?
> It has only been intended for output to a TCP stream socket.
> To be honest, I'm not so sure about this.
> For example, I definitely see us supporting this in the
> opposite direction when commodity 10gbit hits the market.
> Initially I thought "sys_receivefile()" but it makes no
> sense when we have a system call that is perfectly capable
> of describing the tcp_socket --> page_cache operation.

It really needs a new interface for recvfile/copyfile/whatever
anyway, as you can only specify an off_t for the from fd at present.

Also consider that if you have 2 network sockets you really want a
way to see which did the EAGAIN.

Which leads to something like...

ssize_t copyfddata(int out_fd, off_t *offset,
int in_fd, off_t *offset, size_t count, int *in_errno);

...and another for the off64_t API, the errno thing looks crappy but I
think creating EREADAGAIN is even worse (and I just know that won't be
the last if it's done that way) ... unless you can think of another way.

# James Antill --
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
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 13:30    [W:0.063 / U:22.124 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site