On Thu, Apr 20 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:34:31 +0200
>
> > It should be able to, yes. Seems to me it should just work like regular
> > splicing, with the difference that you'd have to wait for the reference
> > count to drop before reusing. One way would be to do as Linus suggests
> > and make the vmsplice call block or just return -EAGAIN if we are not
> > ready yet. With that pollable, that should suffice?
>
> Yes.
>
> We really can't block on this, but I guess we could consider allowing
> that for really dumb applications.
It's up to the user, any non-dumb app would use SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK and
avoid blocking ofcourse.
> It does indeed require some smarts in the application to field the
> events, but by definition of using this splice stuff there is explicit
> knowledge in the application of what's going on.
Exactly.
> This is why I'm very hesitant to say "yeah, blocking on the socket is
> OK", because to be honest it's not. As long as the socket buffer
> limits haven't been reached, we really shouldn't block so the user can
> go and do more work and create more transmit data in time to keep the
> network pipe full.
I'll post what I have tomorrow, lets take it from there.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
