Subject: Re: Ongoing projects
To: Andrew Doran <email@example.com>
From: Soren S. Jorvang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/07/1999 13:41:17
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:32:40PM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
> "Soren S. Jorvang" wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 09:34:57AM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > > > How about a more generalized syscall like move(2) or so that would
> > > > move blocks of data from file descriptor to file descriptor,
> > > > bypassing kernel/user copies in the way of sendfile(2)?
> > >
> > > The original call on Windows NT ( SendFile() ) let's you do this,
> > > but for compatibility how about implementing sendfile() with
> > > move(), so we retain compatibility with FreeBSD and HP-UX?
> > >From what I gather, the various Unix (and NT) sendfile-ish
> > calls are not internally compatible, so I am not sure how to
> > handle compatibility, but I think having the real call be move(2)
> > (or perhaps copy(2)) would be really nice.
> I don't see how the internals matter to Joe Application as
> long as we emulate the API and functionality (even in userland w/
> a call to move(2)/copy(2), as you suggest).
My wording mistake. I just meant that a file-to-socket-only sendfile(2)
is somewhat broken, and that move(2) should be the 'recommended' or
whatever method. Perhaps having separate syscalls is best.