> I'm _not_ seeing the point for a high-performance link to have a generic
> packet buffer.
>
> Linus
Well suppose your RAID controller can take over control of disks
distributed throughout your I/O subsystem. If you assume the bandwidth of
the I/O subsystem is not the limiting factor, there's no need to hang the
disks directly off the RAID controller.
This makes even more sense if your computer can upload code to your
peripherals which they can then run autonomously. Imagine if your filesystem
code is mobile and can reside (perhaps to a variable extent) in your drives
if you want it to.
Of course none of this really relates to the case of the OS trying to get
peripherals to talk to each other directly.
DS
-
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? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David Woodhouse
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Kai Henningsen
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Mo McKinlay
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David Schwartz
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Helge Hafting
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Helge Hafting
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Rick Jones
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Peter Samuelson
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Val Henson

