James Carlson wrote: > Jeremy Harris writes: > > That's not a good argument against implementing it (and changing > > the documentation to match) purely for orthogonality. It's not > > impossible to imagine a UDP service where the data, while small, > > is most conveniently held within a file. For example, an I18N > > message catalogue. > > > > A better reason for not having done it yet is lack of resource. > > A better reason still is a lack of a clear problem statement. I'm not > completely convinced that sendfile() is the right sort of interface to > solve the application. It might "help," but there may well be other > solutions that are _far_ better.
Well, it would still be _nice_ to have either |sendfile()| support for all types of sockets and pipes in both directions to be consistent. The current behaviour of Solaris 11/B37 was the reason that we dropped the idea of using |sendfile()| for the /usr/bin/cat builtin in ksh93's libcmd (the same works Ok on Linux and most other platforms which have IPv6+|sendfile()|-support). Maybe a solution is to implement |sendfile()| in the kernel using a generic kernel copysendfiledata() loop if special |sendfile()| is missing for that type of socket/pipe... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
