On 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The only obvious use for it is file serving, and as high-performance > file serving tends to end up as a kernel module in the end anyway (the > only hold-out is samba, and that's been discussed too), "sendfile()" > really is more a proof of concept than anything else. No plans for samba to use sendfile? Even better make it a tux-like module? (that would enable Netware-Linux like performance with the standard kernel... would be cool afterall ;) -- SaPE - Peter, Sasi - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://sape.iq.rulez.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jamie Lokier
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Laramie Leavitt
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David S. Miller
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Pavel Machek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? jamal
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Pavel Machek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Andries . Brouwer