From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:08:15 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3D86645F.5030401@mandrakesoft.com> References: <20020916.154640.78359545.davem@redhat.com> <20020916.125211.82482173.davem@redhat.com> <12116.1032216780@redhat.com> <12293.1032217399@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, todd-lkml@osogrande.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, pfeather@cs.unm.edu Return-path: To: David Woodhouse Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse wrote: > davem@redhat.com said: > >>> Er, surely the same goes for sys_sendfile? Why have a new system >>> call rather than just swapping the 'in' and 'out' fds? >> > >>There is an assumption that one is a linear stream of output (in this >>case a socket) and the other one is a page cache based file. > > > That's an implementation detail and it's not clear we should be exposing it > to the user. It's not entirely insane to contemplate socket->socket or > file->file sendfile either -- would we invent new system calls for those > too? File descriptors are file descriptors. I was rather disappointed when file->file sendfile was [purposefully?] broken in 2.5.x... Jeff