On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:41:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, David H?rdeman wrote:
Otherwise I guess I'd have to add a second pipe, then (in a loop)
tee() from the first to the second pipe and then splice from the second pipe
to a socket. Doesn't sound very elegant and would need quite a lot of extra
syscalls.
You really should think of this as a memcpy(), and you'll be in the right
mindframe. The system calls themselves are cheap.
Ok, I've implemented it using two pipes, and it works. But it does seem
a bit wasteful...in case one client is not keeping up, the data will
have to be tee():ed first from pipe1 to pipe2, only to then find out
that the splice() from pipe2 to socket only does a partial transfer
after which the data in pipe2 has to be thrown away and then the loop
starts over with the next client.
A tee() from pipe1 to the socket could (I imagine) realize immediately
that the socket does not have enough buffer space and return EWOULDBLOCK
and avoid at least one copy?
--
David Härdeman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
