Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal
From: Igor Sysoev (is_at_rambler-co.ru)
Date: 05/28/03
- Previous message: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- In reply to: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Next in thread: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Reply: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:03:15 +0400 (MSD) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > Really ? I think that on NetBSD, Darwin, and MacOS X I would get:
> > -----
> > warning: implicit declaration of function `sendfile'
>
> I think on NetBSD and OpenBSD, a single search-engine query
> would show you three experimental implementations, all of
> which have the FreeBSD syntax.
I did not found any.
> The Darwin/MacOS X is a no-brainer: someone will get around
> to it eventually; the big barrier is external mbufs, and
> those are really trivial to implement (IMO; I've done it on
> three separate occasions in different code bases, now).
If someone will eventually implement on NetBSD, OpenBSD or Darwin/MacOS X
the FreeBSD compatible sendfile() then he can simply ignore any unsupported
flags. As well as FreeBSD's rfork() implementation ignores some plan9 flags.
> > On Solaris and Linux I will get:
> > -----
> > too many arguments to function `sendfile'
>
> Yes, the argument lists aren't the same. AIX and MVS both
> have identical interfaces, though.
But different with FreeBSD, right ?
It was be very strange if IBM made different send_file() interfaces
for its own systems.
> > sendfile() is very and very unportable interface.
>
> I have no doubt that sendfile(2) will eventually be standardized
> by some well-intentioned standards body, and that the standard
> will not include implementation-bug-based flags definitions.
So what ? Developer would wrote yet more #define or wrapper for
POSIX sendfile().
> > And #define can hide any flags.
>
> Code written that way is not portable, it has been ported.
> There is a big difference.
Well, but it's the same thing I told you. If developer want to use
sendfile() he should be ready that he needs to port its source.
He can make easy port with #define or harder port with wrapper.
> Why are you so dead-set on adding crufty flags, when three
> people who have been in that code before (I back-ported the
> external mbuf code and sendfile to FreeBSD 4.2 and 4.3 at
> one point; Matt has lived in that code; Peter had his nose
> in for quite a while; etc.) say that it's broken, and the
> correct thing to do is to fix it, not add a bunch of kludge
> code to work around the bugs that shouldn't be there in the
> first place?
Well, how do your code handle the partially filled file packets ?
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- In reply to: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Next in thread: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Reply: Terry Lambert: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
