On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Actually, this is a great example, because at one point I was working > on a device interface which would offload all of the disk-disk copying > overhead to the disks themselves, and not involve the CPU/RAM at all. It's a horrible example. device-to-device copies sound like the ultimate thing. They suck. They add a lot of complexity and do not work in general. And, if your "normal" usage pattern really is to just move the data without even looking at it, then you have to ask yourself whether you're doing something worthwhile in the first place. Not going to happen. Linus - 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? Ton Hospel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ben Mansell
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Olivier Galibert
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? LA Walsh
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Rogier Wolff
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Andreas Dilger
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Russell Leighton
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Larry McVoy
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Alan Cox
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Andre Hedrick
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet