Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal
From: Garance A Drosihn (drosih_at_rpi.edu)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:23:14 -0400 To: Marc Slemko <email@example.com>, Igor Sysoev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 11:35 AM -0700 5/28/03, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 2003, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > No, I do want these flags because they resolve the problem of
> > partially filled packets. I believe that this problem can be
> > solved without a fixing the sendfile() implementation.
>As people have said a few times now, making an API change to work
>around a bug in the implementation of sendfile() simply doesn't
>make any sense, especially when there are other workarounds you
>can use until it is fixed that impose a very low overhead. No
>one is saying it can't be solved without fixing sendfile(), we
>are just saying it _shouldn't_ be because any API changes will
>be around for a very long time.
For what it's worth, the debate so far has not convinced me that
there would be enough benefit from this API change to bother
with it. If you (Igor) wanted to write up the code and some
good benchmarks to prove a significant performance boost, that
would probably help many of us who are just watching the debate
go by. So far I've just seen that you really really want it,
while some pretty reasonable arguments have been made against
making an API change for this.
At the moment, I would side with the people saying "do not make
the API change", particularly if it's just to hide a bug in
-- Garance Alistair Drosehn = email@example.com Senior Systems Programmer or firstname.lastname@example.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or email@example.com _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"